BHABADWIP BORAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. K. Brook, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

(2.) This application is filed under Sec. 528 of the BNSS, seeking the setting aside and quashing of PRC Case No. 1587/2022 [corresponding to Jagiroad P.S. Case No. 29/2021], registered under Ss. 120(B)/420/406 of the IPC, along with the Charge Sheet, vide C.S. No. 167/2022 and the impugned order dtd. 11/7/2022, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Morigaon, whereby cognizance was taken against the present petitioners. The case is currently pending before the said Court.

(3.) On 16/1/2021, an FIR was lodged by Nripendra Bhattacharya/present respondent No.2/informant before the Officer-in-Charge of Jagiroad Police Station, stating inter alia that he is a retired employee of Jagiroad Paper Mill and, due to the unavailability of his own house, continues to reside at HPC Colony, Jagiroad. After his retirement, he came to know that the present petitioners were selling their RCC building at Sensuwa, Kalpataru Housing Society, Nagaon District. Following an agreement, he paid Rs.19,35,000.00 (Rupees nineteen lakhs thirty-five thousand) only out of Rs.27,00,000.00 (Rupees twenty-seven lakhs) only to the petitioners. However, despite receiving the payment, the petitioners neither handed over the building nor refunded the amount, even after providing a written surety. The informant further alleged that petitioner No. 2, Nirmali Saikia, issued two cheques, both of which were dishonored due to insufficient funds. Following the FIR, the petitioners were arrested on 27/4/2021 and produced before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon. The Court, considering the facts and circumstances, observed that the dispute was civil in nature, the apprehension of the Investigating Officer (IO) was misplaced, and the arrest of the petitioners was unjustified. Consequently, the petitioners were released on bail on the same day.