477 of 2008, i.e., one instituted by Birendra Kumar Das.
On enquiry, according to the companyplainant, it was discovered that Ganga Dhar Kalita appellant has fraudulently got executed a power of attorney Deed No.
Brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report dated 25.1.2009 was got lodged by respondent No.
4 is also signatory in the First Information Report given by respondent No.
5 Yuva Raj Borgohain, who is said to be another person who executed the power of attorney, was away from India on the date of alleged execution of the Deed.
It is also pleaded by the appellant that a title suit No.
293 of 2009 was filed before the Court of Civil Judge No.
477 of 2008 was dismissed for number prosecution.
He Kaustav K. Kalita , respondent No.
3 to the police.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.
3, Guwahati, by the informants respondent Nos.
As to the pendency of the suit No.
On the above companyplaint, police appears to have registered the case as crime No.
3 and 4, shows that Title Suit No.
3 came to know that appellant Ganga Dhar Kalita and one Birendra Kumar Das have sold the above mentioned land in favour of Sewali Oza, Kabindra Oza and Kaifie Oza.
It is alleged in said report that Kaustav K. Kalita is minor son of respondent No.
Copy of said order, which is annexure A 1 to the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.
In view of said fact, it can be said that the appellant has attempted to suppress the fact that Title Suit No.
3 and 4 and Kaustav K. Kalita, it is true that they have sought cancellation of general power of attorney Deed No.
4 Rishi Raj Borgohain, and respondent No.
However, after hearing the parties, the High Court was number impressed with the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused appellant , and observed that since the allegations made against him make out a companynizable offence, and the allegations are serious in nature, as such, it declined to interfere with the criminal proceedings.
477 of 2008 has already instituted by Birendra Kumar Das.
On 24 3 2008, as alleged, both the husband and wife agreed to sell the residential plot bearing No.
477 of 2008 has been dismissed.
3 and 4 seeking cancellation of the power of attorney in question.
2062 dated 11.4.2006 by forging signatures of Kaustav K. Kalita, Rishi Raj Borgohain and Yuva Raj Borgohain.
2062 of 2006 dated 11.4.2006 purporting to have been executed in respect of the property in question.
It is also urged that another suit No.
5 Yuva Raj Borgohain are pattadars in possession of the land measuring 11 Bigha 2 Kathas 12 Lachas of Patta No.
293 of 2009 filed by respondent Nos.
The present appellant challenged the First Information Report by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code on the ground that the dispute between the parties is of civil in nature.
There is numberhing on the record to suggest that after dismissal of the suit on 15.11.2011 said suit was restored.
It is also alleged that respondent No.
3 Rabindra Nath Kalita at Police Station, Panbazar, District Kamrup, Assam.
Rishi Raj Borgohain respondent No.
The allegations made in the First Information Report disclose that there are serious allegations against the appellant accused that he fraudulently got executed the power of attorney, and Kaustav K. Kalita was minor aged nine years on the date when the deed was said to have been signed by him.
25 of 2009 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 419, 468, 420, 471/34 of Indian Penal Code.
The High Court further opined that the companyplainant has number acted mala fide.
56, situated in Village Kamarkuchi under Panbari Mouza of the District.
It is further alleged that the companyplainant respondent No.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 20.3.2014, passed by the Gauhati High Court in Criminal Petition No.
287 of 2009, whereby said Court has dismissed the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short the Code and declined to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant.
