Facts
The petitioners, members of a charitable society, sought to quash Charge Sheet No. 154/2024 and an order of cognizance dated 11.07.2024 for offences under Sections 120(B)/200/420/294/506/34 of the IPC
Source reference: p.2The dispute arose following a complaint by a Chartered Accountant against Respondent No. 2, which was later retracted. Respondent No. 2 subsequently filed a complaint (C.R. Case No. 10/2023) alleging the petitioners orchestrated the CA’s actions to malign him
Source reference: p.4On 21.01.2023, the CJM, Dibrugarh, directed the police to investigate under Section 156(3) Cr.PC
Source reference: p.5The petitioners challenged this on grounds of procedural non-compliance with Section 154 Cr.PC and the absence of a proper supporting affidavit
Source reference: p.6Issues
1. Whether the order directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.PC was vitiated due to non-compliance with the statutory mandates of Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.PC and the absence of a valid affidavit
Source reference: p.5-6, para. 8-102. Whether the allegations in the FIR and Charge Sheet, taken at face value, disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners
Source reference: p.6-7, para. 12Law Applied
Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.PC) regarding inherent powers to quash proceedings
Source reference: p.2Sections 154(1), 154(3), and 156(3) of the Cr.PC regarding the registration of FIRs and Magisterial directions for investigation
Source reference: p.6State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which established categories for quashing FIRs
Source reference: p.15-16Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (as referenced in arguments regarding the necessity of a supporting affidavit)
Source reference: p.13Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. State of Karnataka, holding that a Magistrate has the discretion to order investigation if a cognizable offence is disclosed
Source reference: p.11-12Reasoning
The Court found that Respondent No. 2 had sufficiently complied with procedural requirements by approaching the police and the Superintendent of Police before filing the complaint, noting that those authorities failed to act
Source reference: p.14, para. 21Regarding the affidavit requirement, the Court observed that although a separate affidavit was not filed, the complaint was duly supported by a sworn affidavit integrated within the petition, which satisfied the legal necessity
Source reference: p.14, para. 21The Court determined that the CJM did not act mechanically; the order dated 21.01.2023 reflected a finding that investigation was necessary to unearth the facts
Source reference: p.15, para. 22Applying the Bhajan Lal standards, the Court concluded that the FIR contained specific allegations that prima facie constituted the charged offences, precluding the exercise of inherent powers to quash at a pre-trial stage
Source reference: p.15-17, para. 23-24Holding
The Court held that the procedural requirements of Section 156(3) Cr.PC were met as the complaint was supported by a sworn statement and prior attempts to lodge an FIR were documented
The Court dismissed the petition, refusing to quash the Charge Sheet or the order of cognizance
Source reference: p.17, para. 25The Court ruled that there was no illegality in the Trial Court's orders and that the petitioners had the opportunity to raise their grievances during the hearing on the discharge/framing of charges
Source reference: p.17, para. 24Original Court PDF
Anil Kumar Poddar And OrsvsThe State Of Assam And Anr
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in