Civil Court findings are not conclusive or binding on Criminal Courts for determining criminal liability.

The petitioner, a former Member of the Assam Legislative Assembly, filed an FIR alleging that four accused persons forged his B.Com educational certificates and marksheet from Dibrugarh University to damage his political reputation during the 2016 elections

Following an investigation, the police filed a Final Report (FR) stating the allegations were false, as university records indicated the petitioner had not passed the examination and his marksheet was a false document

A counter-prosecution under Section 211 IPC was initiated against the petitioner

The petitioner filed a Title Suit (T.S. 49/2017) seeking a declaration of his educational status

The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Jorhat, accepted the FR on 17.02.2018, leading to this revision petition

1. Whether the investigation conducted by the police was perfunctory or defective due to non-examination of specific witnesses and non-seizure of original documents

2. Whether the findings of a pending Civil Suit regarding the same subject matter are binding upon the Criminal Court

3. Whether the CJM’s order accepting the Final Report suffered from illegality or impropriety

The court applied Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. regarding the power to conduct further investigation

Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, which creates a presumption of genuineness for records produced by public officers in their official capacity

Regarding the interaction between civil and criminal jurisdictions, it relied on the precedent of K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police and another (2002), which established that civil court decisions are relevant under Sections 40–43 of the Evidence Act but are not automatically binding or conclusive on criminal proceedings unless satisfying Section 41

The Court found that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) had recorded the petitioner's statement and verified the records with the Dibrugarh University authorities, who are the final arbiters of examination results

The non-examination of the College Principal was deemed immaterial because university tabulation sheets—verified by the Controller of Examinations—confirmed the petitioner had failed

The Court rejected the argument that the I.O. was required to seize every document provided by the complainant, noting that the I.O. exercised valid discretion by verifying the marksheet against the original University Tabulation Sheet

Regarding the Title Suit, the Court reasoned that criminal liability is decided independently on the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt," whereas civil suits rely on "preponderance of evidence"; thus, the pending civil relief did not bar the acceptance of the police's Final Report

The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed, and the order of the CJM, Jorhat, accepting the Final Report was upheld