Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/9 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 18 June, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010235172022
2025:GAU-AS:8065
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1264/2022
DR. FARHIN IQBAL
S/O MD. ALI
FLAT 2A, R.K ENCLAVE, LILA BARUAH LANE,
AMBARI, GUWAHATI- 781001
DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:SURANJANA HAZARIKA
W/O MR. DEBABRATA CHOWDHURY
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 22
2ND FLOOR
PALASH PATH
SENDURI ALI
RG BARUAH ROAD
GUWAHATI - 781024 AND RESIDENT OF 361
ARKELI ROAD
GUELPH
CANAD
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA, MRS S SAIKIA,MR. R J DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/312/2023
SURANJANA HAZARIKA
Page No.# 2/9
W/O MR. DEBABRATA CHOWDHURY
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 22
2ND FLOOR
PALASH PATH
SENDURI ALI
RG BARUAH ROAD
GUWAHATI - 781024 AND RESIDENT OF 361
ARKELI ROAD
GUELPH
CANADA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP
ASSAM
2:FARHIN IQBAL
S/O MD. ALI FLAT 2A
R.K ENCLAVE
LILA BARUAH LANE
AMBARI
GUWAHATI- 781001 DIST. KAMRUP (METRO)
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. R HAZARIKA
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
:: PRESENT ::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.M. Bora,
Senior Advocate,
Mr. R.J. Das,
Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. B. Sarma,
Addl. P.P., Assam.
Page No.# 3/9
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. A. Phukan,
Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 13.05.2025.
Date of Judgment : 18.06.2025.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R.J. Das, the
counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor, Assam (Respondent No.1) as well as Mr. A. Phukan, the learned counsel
representing the Respondent No.2.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
praying for quashing the criminal proceedings of C.R. No.4822 of 2022 pending in the
court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup(M), Guwahati.
3. Late Jatin Hazarika was admitted at Nemcare Hospital at Guwahati. The
petitioner Dr. Farhin Iqbal was working in that hospital as a Cardiologist. Dr. Farhin
Iqbal had conducted ECHO-Cardiogram upon late Jatin Hazarika and gave some
reports. Thereafter, late Jatin Hazarika was shifted to a hospital outside Assam where
he breathed his last.
4. After the demise of late Jatin Hazarika, the Respondent No.2 being his daughter,
had lost all those ECHO-Cardiogram reports. Therefore, she approached the petitioner
for providing her duplicate copies. Accordingly, duplicate copies of the ECHO-
Cardiogram reports were given to the Respondent No.2.
5. This time, it came to the notice of the Respondent No.2 that the ECHO-
Cardiogram reports prepared by Dr. Farhin Iqbal had some corrections. For example,
in the ECHO-Cardiogram reports, being Call Centre No.88 22 201 201 showed that the
LVEF (Teich) 42%. But in the duplicate copy given to the respondent no.2, the 42%
was made 43% by hand. Similarly, in Call Centre No.88 22 201 201 in the LVEF (Teich)
55% but it was made 55.1%. The correction was made by hand. There were some
Page No.# 4/9
other corrections also.
6. Therefore, the Respondent No.2 filed an FIR before police alleging forgery
committed by Dr. Farhin Iqbal. After investigation, police filed a Final Report stating
that no materials could be collected against the present petitioner.
7. The Respondent No.2 filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate First Class
praying for sending the case to police of Bhangagarh P.S. for further investigation.
Accordingly, the matter was sent back to Bhangagarh Police Station. Again, police filed
a Final Report. Therefore, the C.R. No.4822 of 2022 came into being.
8. Mr. Bora has submitted that the definition of forgery as contained in Section 463
of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever makes a false document or false
electronic record or part of the document or electronic record with intention to cause
damage or injury to the public or to any person or to support any claim or title or to
cause any person to part with property or to enter into any express or implied contract
or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits the offence
of forgery. According to Mr. Bora, treatment to late Jatin Hazarika was provided on the
basis of the original ECHO-Reports. After the demise of late Jatin Hazarika, those
duplicate copies were given by the petitioner where there were some handwritten
corrections of datas. Mr. Bora has submitted that those ECHO-Cardiogram reports
given for the second time in duplicate had no potential to commit any harm to the
society or to any person.
9. Mr. Bora has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court that was delivered
in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751. Paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16
are quoted as under:
“13. The condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467 and 471 is forgery.
The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic
record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record.
Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the
two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not
belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion
Page No.# 5/9with the other accused.
14. An analysis of Section 464 of the Penal Code shows that it divides false documents
into three categories:
1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a
document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was
made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person,
by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or
otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it
has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to
sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of
(a) unsoundness of mind; or ( b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him,
know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
In short, a person is said to have made a “false document”, if ( i) he made or executed
a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or ( ii) he
altered or tampered a document; or ( iii) he obtained a document by practising
deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
15. The sale deeds executed by the first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall
under the second and third categories of “false documents”. It therefore remains to be
seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first
accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery
of the documents with the intention of taking possession of the complainant’s land
(and that Accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor, colluded
with the first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring
the case under the first category.
16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed
claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale
deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered
by the owner, to execute the deed on owner’s behalf. When a person executes a
document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The
first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second
is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he
knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of “false documents”, it
is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or
fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the
intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or
by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not
made or executed.”
10. Mr. Phukan has submitted that there cannot be a mini trial in the High Court
exercising the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. According to Mr. Phukan, court
cannot nip a complaint in the bud particularly when statement under Section 200 of
Page No.# 6/9
the CrPC has already been recorded. In order to buttress his point, Mr. Phukan has
relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in C.B.I. v.
Aryan Singh, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said
judgment are quoted as under:
“6. From the impugned common judgment and order [Aryan Singh v. CBI, 2022 SCC
OnLine P&H 4158] passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with
the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High
Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the
learned trial court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage
of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers
under Section 482CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court
in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the
accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency
is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the
trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency.
7. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and
the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this
stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section
482CrPC, the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any
sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the
accused is required to be tried or not”.
11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
12. The trial court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 417, 465 and 468
of the Indian Penal Code. Now, a brief visit to these sections may be fruitful. Sections
417, 465 and 468 read as under:
Section 417- Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Section 465- Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both.
Section 468- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or
electronic record1 forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be
Page No.# 7/9punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
13. Section 415 of the IPC defines the offence of cheating. It states that whoever by
deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to
deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any
property or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything
which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission
causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation
or property is said to cheat.
14. Section 463 of the IPC defines forgery. It states that whoever makes any false
document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with
intention to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any
claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any
express or implied contract, with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be
committed, commits forgery.
15. The basic elements of forgery are- (1) the making of a false document or part of
it and (2) such making should be with such intention as is specified in the Section viz
namely- (a) to cause damage or infringe to (i) the public or (ii) any person; or (b) to
support any claim or title; or (c) to cause any person to part with property, or (d) to
cause any person to enter into an express or implied contract; or (e) to commit fraud
or any fraud may be committed. [(see Sushil Suri v. Central Bureau of Investigation,
reported in (2011) 5 SCC 708)].
16. Above all those things, the most important aspect of a criminal case is the
existence of mens rea i.e. criminal intention. The petitioner being a doctor, treated late
Jatin Hazarika on the basis of original ECHO-Cardiogram reports. After the demise of
late Jatin Hazarika, his daughter lost those reports. Therefore, she approached the
petitioner for giving her duplicate copies of her father’s ECHO-Cardiogram reports. The
Page No.# 8/9
petitioner gave those duplicate reports. But before handing over the said reports to
the Respondent No.2, the petitioner manually made some corrections in the datas
available in the reports. Does this act amounts to cheating or forgery?
17. The answer to the said question must be given in negative. After the demise of
Jatin Hazarika, these reports had lost all their values. These are of no value, except for
insurance claims or similar matters.
18. The Respondent No.2 while filing the complaint case never alleged any prior
enmity with the petitioner, which might lead to handing over some manually corrected
electronic records. In order to constitute an offence, there must be a criminal intention
to cause damage or harm to the society or to any particular person or persons. In my
considered opinion, the complaint lodged by the Respondent No.2 failed to establish a
prima facie criminal case against the present petitioner.
19. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 the Supreme Court has laid
down the guidelines as to when the power under Section 482 of the CrPC can be
exercised by the High Court. Paragraph 102 of the judgment reads as under:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the
Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226
or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines
or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any
Page No.# 9/9offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge.”
20. Coming back to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that the ratio laid
down in Bhajan Lal (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. Allowing the
criminal proceedings of C.R. No.4822/2022 to continue before the trial court will be
nothing but an abuse of the process of the court, because there is no possibility of
future conviction in this case. This Court finds that this is a fit case for exercising the
power under Section 482 of the CrPC. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings of C.R.
No.4822/2022 is quashed and set aside.
Criminal Petition along with the connected Interlocutory Application (Crl.) is
disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant