Gauhati High Court
Santosh Chetry And Anr vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 12 February, 2020
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010317172019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet. 78/2020
1:SANTOSH CHETRY AND ANR.
S/O SRI BAGBIR CHETRY, R/O VILL-DIRGHA PATHAR, P.O.-UTTAR
KULABALI, P.S.-BOGINADI, DIST-LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-787032
2: GOPAL CHETRY
S/O GAGAN NATH CHETRY
R/O VILL- 3 NO. BORMURA
P.O.-SAIKHOWA GHAT
P.S.-DHULA TEH-SADIYA
DIST-TINSUKIA
ASSA
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:SHAROAN MARTIN
COLONEL
DIRECTOR RECRUITING ARMY RECRUITING OFFICE
JORHAT
PIN-900333
C/O 99 AP
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 12.02.2020 Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2) The charge-sheet No. 106/2017 dated 30.07.2017, submitted in connection with Moriani P.S. Case No. 26/2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 67/2016 under Sections 468/471 IPC is the subject matter of challenge in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3) The Army Recruitment Office, Jorhat had lodged an FIR on 23.12.2015 to the effect that on verification of the documents submitted by the applicants for enrollment in the Indian Army, report was received from S.E.B.A. (Board of Secondary Education, Assam) that certain candidates had submitted H.S.L.C. certificates, containing bona fide roll numbers, but with altered age and pass/fail result and dates of birth. The name of two petitioners herein appeared at Sl. No. (b) and (f) of the list of candidates named in the FIR. The said FIR was sent by registered post to the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Dispur by post on 23.12.2015. The said FIR was sent to concerned police station and registered as Boginadi P.S. Case No. 7/2016 under Section 468/ 471 IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 122/2016. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer moved the Court for transfer of the case to the jurisdiction of the Moriani police station and accordingly, by order dated 25.01.2016, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, the case was transferred from Boginadi P.S. to Moriani P.S., where it was re-registered as Moriani P.S. Case No. 26/2016 under Section 468/ 471 IPC. The case was made over to the learned Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Titabar, where the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet.
4) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the charge- sheet does not disclose about the details of the report submitted by the S.E.B.A. and, as such, there is no possibility of any conviction. It is submitted that the case has been falsely Page No.# 3/5 instituted to oust the petitioners from the zone of consideration from being enrolled in the Indian Army. It is also submitted that the petitioner No.1 is a resident of Lakhimpur District and the petitioner No.2 is a resident of Tinsukia District, but as the case is proceeding in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Titabar, the petitioners are facing severe inconvenience of undertaking tedious journey to attend the Court proceedings and that the petitioners, who are unemployed are also required to incur heavy expenditure for taking steps in the case. By relying on the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, it is submitted that as there was bleak chance of conviction, this is a fit and proper case to quash the charge-sheet against the petitioners.
5) It is seen from the order dated 25.01.2016, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur that the I.O. had represented before the said learned Court that the place of occurrence was Moriani Army Camp, which falls within the jurisdiction of Moriani P.S., which was the precise reason for transfer of investigation from Boginadi P.S. to Moriani P.S. The petitioners have not produced any material to show that the order of transfer of investigation suffered from jurisdictional error, as such, no case is made out for quashing of the said order, or for quashing of charge-sheet on the said ground.
6) The charge-sheet is annexed as Annexure-5 to this application (pg. 30-31). As the photocopy of the certified copy of the charge-sheet is not clearly legible and partly written in English and partly in Assamese language, and a typed copy of the charge-sheet is also enclosed as part of Annexure-5 (pg.26-29). However, the contents of column 7 of the charge-sheet have been withheld in the typed copy of charge-sheet, which amounts to concealment of material facts from this Court, which is itself a good ground to dismiss this application as the petitioner has not come with clean hands while invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover, concealment of material facts like the contents of column 7 of charge-sheet, when the application is for quashing of charge-sheet, also amounts to contempt of Court. The purpose of concealing column 7 from the typed copy of charge-sheet is apparent because on a perusal of column 7 of charge-sheet, from whatever is readable from the photocopy of the certified copy of charge-sheet, it is seen that it contains a full Page No.# 4/5 description of relevant information regarding the nature of offence and circumstances and in respect of investigation done by the I.O. Therefore, by concealing the contents of column 7 of the charge-sheet in the typed copy, it is projected by the petitioners as if the charge-sheet contains no material against them. The Court is also appalled by the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioners has also given a certificate at the foot of the typed copy of Annexure-5 of this application - "Certified to be true copy". Therefore, the counsel giving his certificate has also committed dereliction of solemn duty cast on him to candidly disclose all materials facts before this Court, even if there are materials which may go against the party whom the counsel is representing. Moreover, what is more appalling that the counsel who has given his certificate that the document was a true copy has put his short initial signature, which does not match with the signature of any counsel who had signed the vakalatnama. Thus, the intention of the counsel representing the petitioner is also questionable. Hence, for concealment of material facts as indicated above, this application stands dismissed.
7) Notwithstanding the dismissal of this application on the ground of concealment of material facts, from the contents of column 7 of illegible photocopy of the charge-sheet, the Court is, prima facie, satisfied that there are sufficient materials to proceed against both the petitioners herein and there is no way that the Court can accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the charge-sheet discloses no material against the petitioners or that the chances of conviction is absolutely bleak. Therefore, none of the parameters for quashing, as enumerated in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), is found attracted in any manner in this case in hand.
8) The court is constrained to hold that this application is without any merit and the same stands dismissed without issuance of notice on the State respondent.
9) The Registry shall communicate a copy of this order to the learned Court of Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Titabar so as to enable the said learned Court to keep a copy of this order in the record of the case.
Page No.# 5/5
10) Before parting with the records, the Registry is requested to examine the records of this case on administrative side by comparing the signature given on certificate by the learned counsel with signature available in vakalatnama to explore the possibility of accepting only those petitions and affidavits, the annexures of which contains certificate bearing the full signature and/ or the same signature as contained in the vakalatnama accepted by the counsel, or who provides his/ her enrolment number on each document containing such certificate.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant