Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010264922019

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Crl.Pet. 1281/2019

1:MAHESH CHANDRA DAS
PROPRIETOR OF M/S ASHA DEVI ENTERPRISES, S/O LATE SARBESWAR
DAS, R/O BORIGAON, WARD NO. 9, P.S.-JORHAT, DIST-JORHAT, ASSAM

VERSUS

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

2:AMKAM THASA
THE MANAGER OF CANARA BANK
NAZIRA BRANCH
NAZIRA
SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN-78154

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P KATAKI

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

ORDER

Date : 01-11-2019

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Present petitioner, namely, Mahesh Chandra Das was arrayed as an accused in one of the cases
filed by one Smt Parichaya Dihingia Gogoi vide Nazira PS Case No. 224/2015, under Sections 406/Section420
Page No.# 2/2

SectionIPC. On the basis of the said FIR, chargesheet was submitted and the accused faced the trial in
connection with the said case vide GR Case No. 641/2015 and vide judgment and order dated
12.12.2017, passed by the JMFC, Nazira, Sivasagar, he was convicted under Section 406 IPC and
sentenced to execute a bond under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act as well as to pay
compensation amount to the said Smt Parichaya Dihingia Gogoi under Section 5 of the Probation of
Offenders Act. Now, it has been contended that exactly on similar grounds another FIR has been filed
by the petitioner concerned, which has been registered as Nazira Case No. 122/2016, under Sections
420/Section406 IPC dated 29.06.2016. Herein also, charge sheet has been submitted and the case is at hearing
stage. The prayer for discharge made by the petitioner was not considered by the learned trial Court.

Challenging the second subsequent FIR and the entire proceeding, the present application has
been preferred for quashing the aforesaid proceeding.

I have gone through the documents annexed and considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State. Apparently, accusations
made in both the cases appears to be similar.

Let a notice be issued to respondent No. 2.

Returnable by 4 (four) weeks.

Furnish extra copies of the petition to respondent No. 1.
Considering all entirety of the matter, further proceeding pertaining to GR Case No. 318/2016,
pending in the Court of learned SDJM (M), Nazira, Sivasagar, shall remain stayed.

Call for the scanned copy of the Case Diary in connection with the present case and call for the
scanned copy of the earlier GR Case, i.e., GR Case No. 641/2015 (disposed of) from the Court of
learned JMFC, Nazira, along with the Case Diary.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant