Md.Mudasir Hussain vs State of Assam

With the help of this application, made under Section 482 Cr.PC., the petitioner, who is accused in Jalukbari Police Station Case No.101/2001 (GR Case No.1691/2001) under Sections 468/471/420/34 IPC, has sought for quashing of the chargesheet, which has been submitted against him seeking his prosecution under the said penal provisions.

I have heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned counsel, for the accusedpetitioner, and Ms. B. Saikia, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

While considering the present application, made under Section 482 Cr.PC., what needs to be noted is that the accusedpetitioner, as a student of Nagaon ADP College, submitted, by means of arepresentation, to the Gauhati University, his marksheets for B.Sc PartI and PartII examinations with the complaint that since the aggregate of the marks, obtained by the accusedpetitioner in B.Sc PartI examination, had been wrongly calculated, the same be corrected. However, when the said two marksheets, which the accusedpetitioner had allegedly submitted to the University concerned, were examined, it was found that the marksheet, for B.Sc PartII examination, was a forged one. An order was accordingly made by the University concerned declaring the said marksheet, i.e., the accusedpetitioner''s marksheet for B.Sc PartII, 2000, as forged. When the accusedpetitioner came to collect the corrected marksheet from the University concerned, he was caught by the employees of the University and was handed over to the police, at Jalukbari Police Station, along with a First Information Report (in short, FIR) lodged in this regard. Based on the said FIR, Jalukbari Police Station Case No.101/2001 aforementioned was registered and, on completion of investigation, a chargesheet, as indicated above, has been filed against the accusedpetitioner.

One of the chief grievances, as expressed by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel, on behalf of the accusedpetitioner, is that it is the Principal, ADP College, Nagaon, who had given the marksheet, in question, to the accusedpetitioner, but he was not examined as a witness by the police and, secondly, even if one of the marksheets was found to be forged, the accusedpetitioner ought not to have been fastened with the liability of criminal prosecution inasmuch as he iscompletely innocent and the chargesheet needs to be, therefore, set aside and quashed.

Considering the fact that it is the case of the accusedpetitioner that it was the Principal of the said College, who had handed over the marksheets to the accusedpetitioner, and the said Principal is, therefore, answerable if one of the marksheets has been found to be forged, the fact remains that the question as to whether it was the Principal, who had handed over the marksheet, in question, to the accusedpetitioner or not, is a question of fact, which, as a defence, the accusedpetitioner may be required to prove or probablise. This apart, even if the Principal of the said College is treated as a material witness, the omission, on the part of the Investigating Agency, to examine the said Principal or their omission to mention his name, in the chargesheet, would not, automatically, lead this Court to set aside and quash the chargesheet inasmuch as prosecution, if need be, can produce the Principal of the said College as a witness. The Court, if it considers calling of the Principal of the said College necessary for a just decision of the case, can also call him as a witness by taking recourse to Section 311 Cr.PC and even the accusedpetitioner may, if required, call the said Principal as a witness or make application to the trial Court, if the trial takes place, to call the said Principal, as a witness, in order to enable the Court to arrive at a just decision, in the case, in exercise of this Court''s power under Section 311 Cr.PC.

In the circumstances, indicated above, quashing of the chargesheet would be premature, when the materials, collected duringinvestigation, otherwise, prima facie disclose commission of offence of forgery in respect of the marksheet, which the accusedpetitioner allegedly submitted to the University concerned seeking correction of the aggregate marks in the said marksheet.

Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court does not find that the petitioner has been able to make out any case warranting interference with the chargesheet in exercise of this Court''s power under Section 482 Cr.PC.

This revision, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed.

Before parting with this revision, it is, however, made clear that whatever observations have been made above are in the context of quashing of the chargesheet and, hence, the same would not have any bearing at the stage of consideration of charge in the trial Court and the learned trial Court shall, therefore, consider the case, in question, in accordance with law without taking any help or support from the observations, which have been made above by this Court in a matter relating to quashing of chargesheet.

In order to expedite the process of disposal of the case, it is hereby directed that the accusedpetitioner shall appear, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, in connection with the case aforementioned, on 27.06.2012.

Send back the LCR.