Assam HC Refuses To Quash Nearly Nine-Year Probe Against Two NGO Office-Bearers Over Allegedly Forged Cheques, Sets Six-Month Deadline for Completion

The petitioners sought quashing of CID P.S. Case No. 28/2018, registered under Sections 120-B and 409 IPC following allegations of conspiracy and misappropriation of funds under the Chief Minister’s Special Package Scheme 2015–16.

The investigation remained pending for several years.

The State relied on investigative material concerning allegedly forged bearer cheques: original cheque leaves associated with each petitioner had been seized, and forensic examination found the questioned cheque leaves were not genuine.

The High Court considered the FIR and the case diary, which showed that the investigation was ongoing.

Quashing may be justified where allegations, taken at face value, do not disclose an offence, but a court should not assess the merits of an evolving investigation where incriminating material has emerged.

Under Section 405 IPC, criminal breach of trust requires entrustment and dishonest misappropriation or conversion; Section 409 applies where the requisite entrustment and breach are established against a person in a specified capacity, including a public servant, banker, or agent.

The Court recognised that Article 21 protects the right to fair investigation and that undue delay may cause prejudice, while holding that delay does not automatically require quashing.

It also applied the Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, framework for quashing based on defence material of sterling and impeccable quality that rules out the prosecution’s factual assertions.

The Court found that the FIR alleged misappropriation of public funds and that the investigation had produced material connecting the petitioners to questioned cheque leaves: original leaves were seized from them, and forensic examination indicated that the relevant leaves were not genuine.

In those circumstances, the Court could not conclude that the investigation disclosed no incriminating material or that the petitioners’ material conclusively ruled out the allegations; it also declined to speculate about what further investigation might reveal.

Although the investigation had taken an unusually long time and the delay could prejudice the petitioners, the Court held that the appropriate remedy on these facts was to require prompt completion, not to quash the investigation.

It directed the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation within six months, on or before 3 May 2027, and to submit a brief status report to the CJM, Kamrup (M), every two months during that period.