THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT v. THE STATE OF ASSAM & Anr.

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Page No.# 3/5

18.03.2025 Heard Mr. G. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This application is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for the setting aside and quashing of the impugned FIR dated 07.11.2021, the impugned Charge-sheet dated 29.02.2024, filed in connection with Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 777/2021, registered under Sections 379/420/411/34 of the IPC, and the subsequent impugned order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar, in Police Report (PRC) Case No. 135/2024, whereby charges were framed against the present petitioners under Section 420 of the IPC.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioners, that according to the FIR, one truck, bearing Registration No. AP-05-TA-3336, was intercepted by the police with an allegation that it was loaded with illegal rice. Upon inquiry, the driver and handyman could not produce any documents, leading to the suspicion that the rice was either stolen or part of the Public Distribution System (PDS). Based on this, the case was registered under Sections 379/420/411 of the IPC. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioners under Sections 379/420/411/34 of the IPC. He further submitted that petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor of a private firm, A. M. Enterprise, dealing with shops, hotels, hawkers, scrap dealers, etc. The other petitioners are the driver, handyman, and owner of the said vehicle.

4. He also submitted that the 500 bags of rice seized by the police during the investigation were purchased by petitioner No. 2 from Khandakarpara Bazar between 19 th October 2021 and 5th November 2021 for Rs. 4 (four) lakhs. On 06.11.2022, an invoice was generated for the transportation of these rice bags from A. M. Enterprise to Mahapragya Enterprise, West Bengal. However, during the transportation, the truck was intercepted, and it was alleged that the 500 bags of rice were stolen or part of the PDS. Page No.# 4/5

5. During the investigation, petitioner No. 2 filed a zimma petition before the learned Trial Court for the return of the seized rice, submitting all relevant invoices and documents. The prayer for zimma was initially rejected by the learned Trial Court. However, petitioner No. 2 approached this Court, and by Order dated 21.03.2022 in Crl.Petn. No. 01/2022, the prayer for zimma was allowed after perusal of the report submitted by the FCI, which could not definitively conclude whether the rice was part of the PDS. Following this, petitioner No. 2 approached the learned Trial Court with a fresh zimma application, providing all necessary documents. After verifying the documents, the zimma was granted to petitioner No. 2.

6. Mr. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although the charge-sheet was filed under Sections 379/420/411/34 of the IPC, charges were only framed under Section 420 of the IPC. Therefore, the allegation of theft does not exist, and the charge-sheet was filed solely under Section 420 of the IPC. However, there is no evidence or material to show that the petitioners committed any act of cheating to attract Section 420, especially in the absence of supporting charges under Sections 379/411 of the IPC. He emphasized that the petitioners are law-abiding citizens, regularly appearing before the learned Trial Court, but there is no evidence to suggest that they engaged in cheating. The only initial allegation was that the truck was loaded with stolen or PDS rice, but there is no material to support this claim. In light of these facts, the FIR, charge-sheet, and order framing the charge by the learned Trial Court are fit to be set aside and quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the charge-sheet reveals that during the investigation, the driver and handyman could not provide any relevant documents to substantiate the purchase of the rice. The petitioners failed to produce documents proving that the rice seized in connection with this case was legitimately purchased. While it could not be certified that the rice was PDS rice due to technical issues, these are disputed facts that cannot be considered in a petition for quashing.

8. After hearing the submissions of both sides, and I have perused the case record along with other annexures and orders, it is seen that the learned Trial Court, while passing the order on zimma, had perused all the relevant documents. The zimma was granted after considering the fact that the seized 500 bags of rice were not stolen property and were Page No.# 5/5 purchased by petitioner No. 2. However, there is no report confirming whether the seized rice was intended for PDS distribution. Furthermore, while framing the charge under Section 420 of the IPC, the learned Trial Court did not provide any explanation as to why charges under Sections 379/411 of the IPC were dropped, nor did it explain why the Court was prima facie satisfied that there were sufficient grounds to frame charges under Section 420 of the IPC.

9. In light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for invoking its power under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR dated 07.11.2021, the charge sheet dated 29.02.2024, and the order dated 28.11.2024, passed in PRC Case No. 135/2024, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed.

10. In terms of above, this criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant