Dipshikha SLP

INDEX
Sl. Particulars Page No. of part of Remarks

No which it belongs
Part-I Part-II
(Content Content
s of s of file
Paper alone)
Book)
i Ii iii Iv v
ii Court Fees
1. O/R on limitation A
2. Listing Performa A1-A2 A1-A2
3. Cover Page of Paper A-3
Book
4. Index of Record of A-4
proceedings
5. Defect list A-5
6. Note sheet NS 1 to
7. List of Dates B– B–
8. Against the final 1-16
judgment and order
passed by the
Hon’ble Gauhati
High Court, at
Assam, Order dated
22.08.2024 passed
in Criminal Petition
No. 1059 OF 2023
(Appealed from)
9. SLP with Affidavit 17-
10 Annexure-P/1
True copy the
.
Consultant
Engagement
Agreement dated
19-04-2021.
11 Annexure-P/2
True Copy of the
. GST Registration
Certificate date of
Issue 17.03.2022,
Incorporation
Registration
No.18ABGCS2383C
1ZD
12 Annexure-P/3
True Copy e-mail
.
dated 13.07.2023.
13 Annexure-P/4
True copies of the
.
delivery notes w.e.f.
18/05/2023 to
23/06/2023.
14 Annexure-P/5
True copy of the
First Information
Report P.S. case
No.264/2023 dated
08.08.2023
15 Annexure-P/6
True copy of the
forwarding report
dated 21/08/2023
16 Annexure-P/7
True copy of the
Gauhati High Court,
passed by the
Order dated 31-08-
2023 in Case No.:
AB/2974/2023
17 Annexure-P/8
True copy of the
Gauhati High Court,
passed by the
Order dated 31-08-
2023 in Case No.:
AB/2974/2023
18 Annexure-P/9
True copy of interim
bail order Learned
Addl. Session Judge,
Kamrup(M) in A.B.
No.299/2023 dated
01-09-2023
19 Annexure-P/10
True copy of the
termination letter
from The Hudson
Foods Private
Limited to Ms.
Dipshikha
Choudhary dated
15-09-2023
20 Annexure-P/11
True copy of the
Order passed by the
Gauhati high Court
Case No.
AB/2973/2023
dated 16-10-2023
21 Annexure-P/12
True copy of the
reply letter from Ms.
Dipshikha
Choudhury was
send to Mr. Rishabh
Raniwala (Director
of Hudson Foods
private Limited)
dated 19-11-2023
22 Annexure-P/13
True copy of the
Order Passed by the
Addl. District and
Session Judge No.1
Kamrup Metro, Case
Number: AB
Anticipatory
Bail/0000299/2023
dated 22-11-2023
23 An Application for
C/Delay in SLP
24 Filing Memo
25 Vakalatnama.
A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. ------ OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF;
Dipshikha Chaudhury …..Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam & Anr. ….Respondents
OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION
1. The petition is/ are within time.
2. The petition is barred by time and there is a delay of

days in filing the same against the order dated
22/08/2024 and petition for condonation of days delay
has been filed.
3. There is a delay of ____days in refilling the petition
and petition for condonation of ____days delay in refilling
has been filed.
BRANCH
OFFICER
NEW DELHI
DATED:07.11.2024
A-1
PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
SECTION: II
The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):
□ Central Act: (Title) NA
□ Section : NA
□ Central Rule : (Title) NA
□ Rule No(s): NA
□ State Act: (Title) NA
□ Section: NA
□ State Rule : (Title) NA
□ Rule No(s): NA
□ Impugned Interim Order : (Date) NA
□ Impugned Final Order/Decree : (Date) 22.08.2024
□ High Court: (Name): High Court of Gauhati at Assam
□ Names of Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kaushik
Goswami J)
□ Tribunal/Authority ; (Name) NA
1. Nature of matter : √□ Criminal
2. (a) Petitioner/appellant No : Dipsikha Choudhury
(b) e-mail ID: NA
(c) Mobile phone number: NA
3. (a) Respondent No. 1: The State of Assam & Anr.
(b) e-mail ID: NA
(c) Mobile phone number: NA
4. (a) Main category classification: 14

(b) Sub classification: 1418
5. Not to be listed before: NA
6. (a) Similar disposed off matter with citation if any,
& case details: No similar disposed matter
(b) Similar Pending matter with case details: No similar
matter pending
7. Criminal. Matters: Yes
(a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered: No
(b) FIR No. 264/2023 Date: 08.08.2023
(c) Police Station: Guwahati Dist. Guwahati
(d) Sentence Awarded: No
(e) Sentence Undergone: No
8. Land Acquisition Matters: NA
(a) Date of Section 4 notification: NA
(b) Date of Section 6 notification: NA
(c) Date of Section 17 notification: NA
9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: NA
10. Special Category (first petitioner/appellant only): NA
□ Senior citizen > 65 years □SC/ST □Woman/child □
Disabled □ Legal Aid case □ In custody:
11.Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim
matters):NA
Date: 07/11/2024
AOR for petitioner(s)/appellant/Respondent(s)
(Name): ADEEL AHMED
Registration No.1234
14, Lawyers Chamber
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi -110001
Mob: 8585908959
Email:adeellnbox@gmail,com
ORDER XXII RULE 2(1) (a)

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. OF 2024
(Against the Impugned Judgment and Final Order

passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati at
Assam, vide judgment dated 22.08.2024 in case
No Crl.Pet..1059 of 2023)
WITH
(PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)
IN THE MATTER OF :
Dipshikha Chaudhury …..Petitioners

Versus
WITH
PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)
CRLMP No. of 2024: an Application for C/delay in filing

the SLP
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: ADEEL AHMED

SYNOPSIS & LIST OF DATES
The present Special Leave Petition is being preferred

against Judgment and order dated 22-08-2024 passed by
the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in Crl.Pet/1059/2023. Vide
the impugned Judgement and Final Order, the aforesaid
Petition under Section 482 CrPC, 1973. The Petitioner is
seeking quashing of the First Information Report being
registered as Hatigaon PS Case No. 264/2023 registered
under Section 419/406/420 IPC, came to be dismissed.
The Petitioner (a Director of Shonali Foods & Feeds Pvt.)

was engaged as Consultant of Hudson Foods Private
Limited by Consultant Engagement Agreement dated 19-
04-2021 to provide service and the Company agreed to
pay the Consultant Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs)
per month along with 7.5% of the net profit after all due
taxes if the company report profit books in the account as
consultant fees as mentioned in the Agreement.
Accordingly, the Petitioner was working as Consultant of
the said Company since 2019.
The Petitioner was introduced to the Company by One

Nilank Kashyap alias Nilam Medhi, who maintained
constant touch with the Company and requested them to
make the Petitioner as representative of the said
Company for the North-East States. Even though the
Petitioner was the Consultant, Mr. Kashyap on several
dates till 23-06-2023 communicated order of different
goods.
The Petitioner continued the work as the Consultant for
the Company but after a point of time did not received
either the consultant fees or the 7.5% of the net profit.
Time and again the Petitioner have orally requested the
Company for the payment but the company did not pay
any heed. Thereafter the company stopped to deliver the
goods and also did not send the pending delivery note of
the goods against which payment was already paid.
Therefore on 13/07/2023 the Petitioner send a E-mail to
the Company to provide the ledger.
Meanwhile there have been activity by Mr. Kashyap under

the false authority of the Petitioner, as in there was no
authorization letter issued by the Petitioner towards Mr.
Kashyap as he was not any employee or agent of the
Company. Hence the orders placed by Mr. Kashyap were
believed and accepted by the Company, which were also
transported to him cannot be held responsible by the
Petitioner.
The Godown of the said Company is located in Sonapur,

Assam which under the control of the Company by the
Godown In-Charge ( Baban Pathak) appointed by the
Company itself and the Petitioner is not responsible for
the Goods present or missing in the said area. But Mr.
Aditya Haralalka lodged an FIR against the Petitioner on
the 08-08-2023 before the Hatigaon Police Station Case
No. 264/2023 under Section 419/406/420 IPC, according
to the information from 24-05-2023 Goods have been
missing from the Company Godown. Later on, 15/09/2023
the Company send a letter of termination to the
Petitioner.
Here FIR has been filed alleging some false, baseless and
fabricated allegation, the allegation levelled in the FIR
can be construed as a contractual dispute which is Civil in
Nature, hence the SLP.
LIST OF DATES
The Petitioner begs to state that the Branch

19- of Hudson Foods Pvt. Ltd: Company was
04-2021 started in Guwahati, Basistha in the year
2021 to carry out their business across the
North East States. As the petitioner is related
with the business of Manufacturing of food
product (Poultry Feeds), the authority of
Hudson Foods Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, approached
the petitioner and appoint her as consultant
of the said Company to carry out their
business in the North Eastern Region.
Accordingly, on 19/04/2021 the Hudson Foods
Pvt. Ltd. executed a Consultant Engagement
Agreement with the petitioner and the
petitioner was appointed as a Consultant of
the said company. As per APPENDIX-B of the
said agreement, the petitioner is entitled
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs) per month
as monthly remuneration towards
consultancy. The petitioner is also entitled
7.5% of the net profit after all due taxes if the
company reports profits books in the account.
True copy of the Consultant Engagement

Agreement dated 19-04-2021 is annexed
herewith as Annexure P-1(Pages )
17.03.202 That the Petitioner is young 30 year. Old

2, mother of a new born baby, and a Director of
Shonali Food & Feeds Pvt. Ltd., situated at
Birubari, Guwahati along with 2 other
Directors. The Shonali Food & Feeds Pvt. Ltd
is a Assam Based manufacture of Food
products (Poultry Feeds) and beverages
company.
True copy of the GST Registration Certificate

date of Issue 17.03.2022, Incorporation
Registration No.18ABGCS2383C1ZD is
annexed herewith as Annexure P-2(Pages
)
01-03- As the authorised signatory, the Petitioner

2022 & was asked to enter into a Deed of Lease
Agreement for the branch office in Guwahati
05-09-
and for a godown in Sonapur , where it was
2022
expressly agreed the payments to the Lessor
account will be made through the company
account of Hudson Foods Private Limited.
13.07.202 The Petitioner begs to state that the
3 petitioner was working as consultant of the
said company since her appointment without
any complaint from any corner. Initially the
company pay the monthly consultancy fees
to the petitioner. But since last 13 months,
the company did not pay any single amount
to the petitioner as consultancy fees.
The company did not give ledger of the

company and also did not gave 7.5% share of
profit to the petitioner. Therefore, the
petitioner on several occasions orally
requested the pay the consultancy fess at
least, but the authority of the said company
did not pay any heed. Thereafter, the
authority of Hudson Foods Pvt. Ltd. stopped
to delivery the goods and also not send the
pending delivery Note of good against which
the
petitioner already make payment. Therefore,

on 13/07/2023 the petitioner sent a letter to
the said company through e-mail to provide
the ledger of the petitioner. But till date the
has not been furnish to the petitioner.
Therefore, some disputes arose between the
petitioner and the said company regarding
business transaction.
The copy of e-mail dated 13.07.2023 annexed
16-05- That the Petitioner begs to state that to carry

2023 out business of the said Company through
Guwahati Office, orders were procured by the
Guwahati Office, and were send to the
Kolkata Head Office with the detail name of
the customer along with his address, items to
be dispersed with rate. The Head Office used
to issue Delivery Note of order for dispatch
goods from Raninagar Plant, Jalpaiguri to the
gowdown located at Sonapur, Guwahati on
the basis of the Orders raised by the
Guwahati branch. The Sonapur Godown is
under the control of the Head Office of the
Company. The Godown In-Charge is look after
stocks, loading and unloading of goods. Since
16/05/2023 to 23/06/2023, the Head Office of
the Company sent about 156 MT goods i.e.
Poultry Feed to Guwahati at Sonapur Godown
for dispatch the same to the customers and
the Head Office issued delivery notes for the
same.
True copies of the delivery notes w.e.f.

18/05/2023 to 23/06/2023 are annexed as
Annexure P-4(Pages )
08-08- A First Information Report was registered
2023 number: 264/23 in the Hatigaon Police
Station, Guwahati upon receiving the
complaint by One Mr. Aditya Haralalka
through E-mail to the Officer-in-Charge,
Hatigaon Police station. The Complainer had
mentioned four names in the e-mail 1) Nilank
Kashyap/ Nilam Medhi,2) Dipshikha
Choudhury,3) Baban Pathak,4) Jyoti Rekha
Dutta for the offence of cheating, breach of
contract, theft, criminal intimidation and
unauthorized sale of goods. In which case
they were booked under the Section
419/406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.
The compliant was based on the surprise visit

on 24-06-2023 at the Sonapur Godown to
take a stalk of the stocks supposed to be
available in the godown as per the statement
of Mr. Baban Pathak. But on the site, there
was no stock of product in the godown and
Mr. Nilank Kashyap and Mrs. Dipshikha
Choudhury were absent.
Also, a Bolero vehicle bearing registration WB

02 AA 5823 was being used by Mr. Kashyap
for personal use without any legal right which
was given by the company for official use of
the company only.
True copy of the First Information Report P.S.

case No.264/2023 dated 08.08.2023 has
been annexed herewith as Annexure P-
5(Pages )
21-08- The petitioner begs to state that during

2023 Investigation the police arrested the accused
Baban Pathak and husband of petitioner
namely Sudarshan Medhi on 21/08/2023
without issuing anu notice under Section
41(A)
Cr.P.C. and since then they are in judicial

custody. The police also harassed the family
members of the petitioner in connection with
the present case.
True copy of the forwarding report dated

21/08/2023 is annexed herewith as
29-08- An Anticipatory Bail Application was placed

2023 before The Gauhati High Court, Case No.:
AB/2974/2023.
The accused Deep Sikha Choudhury have

appealed for Pre-arrest bail application in the
connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No.
264/2023, U/S 406/419/420 of IPC.
The appeal was before Honourable Mr. Justice

Robin Phukan who have declined any interim
protection to the applicant.
Accordingly, the case dairy be called for

fixing the matter on 26-09-2023.
True copy of the Gauhati High Court, passed

by the Order dated 31-08-2023 in Case No.:
AB/2974/2023 is annexed herewith as

AB/2974/2023.
The accused Deep Sikha Choudhury have

appealed for withdrawal of the Pre-arrest bail
application in the connection with Hatigaon
P.S. Case No. 264/2023, U/S 406/419/420 of
IPC.
The appeal was before Honourable Mr. Justice

Robin Phukan who have allowed the prayer
and accordingly the Anticipatory Bail
application stands disposed of on withdrawal.
True copy of the Gauhati High Court, passed

by the Order dated 31-08-2023 in Case No.:
AB/2974/2023 is annexed herewith as
01-09- The petitioner begs to state that the on

2023 apprehension of arrest the petitioner
approached the Learned Session Court,
Kamrup (M) praying for pre-arrest bail with
A.B. No.299/2023 and the learned Addl.
Session Judge, Kamrup(M) vide order dated
01/09/2023 was pleased to grant ad-interim
bail to the petitioner in connection present
Hatigaon P.S Case No. 264/2023.
True copy of interim bail order Learned Addl.

Session Judge, Kamrup(M) in A.B.
No.299/2023 dated 01-09-2023 is annexed
15-09- The termination letter from The Hudson

2023 Foods Private Limited to Ms. Dipshikha
Choudhary. The termination was due
engaging in multifarious criminal activities
vis-à-vis illegal removal and sale of
company’s Products lying at Sonapur godown
and seeking to wrongfully posses and
unauthorizedly and illegally sell company’s
products. The covenants contained in the
Clause [2(iv)] of the “Agreement” we signed
on April 19,2023 which stands terminated
with immediate effect.
True copy of the termination letter from The

Hudson Foods Private Limited to Ms.
Dipshikha Choudhary dated 15-09-2023 is
)

AB/2973/2023.
The accused Nilam Medhi/ Nilank Kashyap

have appealed for Pre-arrest bail application
in the connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No.
264/2023, U/S 406/419/420 of IPC.
The appeal was before the court of

Honourable Mrs Justice Malasri Nandi, who
have after hearing both the councils have
disposed the Bail application and the interim
pre-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner
on misconception of facts that the name of
the petitioner has not been reflected in the
FIR. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
obtained the interim order by misleading the
Court which is definitely a ground for
vacation/cancellation of interim order. It also
appears from case diary that the petitioner
has not cooperated with the investigation. In
spite of receipt of Section 41(A) notice, the
petitioner did not appear before the I/O
without showing any ground. Therefore the
interim pre-arrest bail granted to the
petitioner vide order dated 29-08-2023
stands vacated/cancelled.
True copy of the Order passed by the Gauhati
high Court Case No. AB/2973/2023 dated 16-
10-2023 is annexed herewith as Annexure
P-11(Pages )
19-11- A reply letter from Ms. Dipshikha Choudhury

2023 was send to Mr. Rishabh Raniwala (Director of
Hudson Foods private Limited) stating that
the company has not paid her the
consultancy fees and the share of 7.5% of
profit of the company as per the agreement
which took between them on 19-10-2023.
Also has filed a false case alleging some false
and fabricated allegation and the company
deliberately breach terms and conditions .
True copy of the reply letter from Ms.

Dipshikha Choudhury was send to Mr.
Rishabh Raniwala (Director of Hudson Foods
private Limited) dated 19-11-2023 is annexed
herewith as Annexure P- 12(Pages )
22-11- An anticipatory bail application before The

2023 Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1,
Kamrup Metro, Case Number: AB Anticipatory
Bail/0000299/2023.
The accused Dipshisha Chaudhury have

appealed the Pre-arrest bail application in the
connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No.
264/2023, U/S 406/419/420 of IPC.
The Honourable Judge after hearing both

sides have come to the conclusion that this
case does not come fit case for exercising the
power under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Hence
the prayer of pre-arrest bail of the
accused/petitioner Dipshisha Chaudhury
stands rejected at this stage. The interim
order dated 01-09-2023 stands vacated.
True copy of the Order Passed by the Addl.

District and Session Judge No.1 Kamrup
Metro, Case Number: AB Anticipatory
Bail/0000299/2023 dated 22-11-2023 is
)
22-08- The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the Case

No. Crl. Pet./1059/2023 has stands rejected
2024
the Criminal Petition and the interim order
passed earlier stands rejected.
07.11.202 Hence this SLP
4

ORDER XXII RULE 2(1) (a)
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. : OF 2024
(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)
IN THE MATTER OF: Position of Parties

Lower High This Court
Court Court
1. Dipshikha Accused Petitioner Petitione

Choudhury, age 30 r
Yrs. W/o, Sudarshan
Medhi, Vill. Bahari,
P.O. Niz- Bahari, P.S.
Tarabari, Dist-
Barapeta, Assam
VERSUS
1. The State of Assam , Prosecutio Responde Contesti

throughthe Principal n nt ng
Secretary to the Govt, Respont.
of Assam,. Home
Dispur, Assam
2. Aditya Haralalka, Responde Responde Respont.

S/o, Late Dindayal nt nt No.2
Haralalka,Hudson No.2 No.2
Foods Pvt.
Ltd.Bengal Eco
Inlelligent park, 13th
Floor, Room-2A,
Block EM, Sector-V,
Salt Lake Kolkata-
700 091
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and His Companion
Justices of the Supreme Court of India
The Special Leave Petition of the Petitioner
above named:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present Special Leave Petition has been
filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India
praying for Special Leave to Appeal against the
Impugned Judgment and Final Order dated
22.08.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Gauhati at Assam passed in Criminal Petition
No.1059/2023 whereby the Hon’ble High Court has
dismissed the Criminal Petition filed by the Petitioner
seeking quashing of FIR No. Hatigaon P.S. Case No.
264/2023 dated 09.08.2023.
2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:
The following questions of law arise for consideration
by this Hon’ble Court:
That the substantial questions of law which arise for

consideration of this Hon’ble Court are as follows:
I. Whether the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court failed to
appreciate the facts of the case where no prima
facie case has been made out under Section
419/406/420 IPC against the Petitioner, there are
no ingredients present in the FIR to constitute the
offence under Section 419/406/420 IPC against
the accused petitioner.
II. Whether the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court failed to
appreciate the facts of the case from the FIR
where it says that the goods were transported
from principal to principal basis, there is no way
the Petitioner can be held responsible for its
alleged misappropriation.
III. Also, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court did not
quash the FIR as the offences under Section
419/406/420 of IPC is not made out and it can be
construed as a contractual dispute which is Civil
in Nature.
IV. The primary question before this Court is whether
the High Court has erred in rejecting the plea of
the appellants for quashing the criminal
proceedings against them. The question at the
heart of the present dispute is whether the
averments in the complaint disclose the
ingredients necessary to constitute an offence
under the Penal Code.
3. DECLARATION UNDER RULE 2(2)
The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking

for Leave to Appeal has been filed challenging the
impugned final order dated 22.08.2024 passed by
Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in Crl.Pet./1059/2023.
4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE –4:

The petitioner states that the Annexure P-1 to P-13
filed along with the Special Leave Petition are true
copies of pleadings/documents which form part of the
records of the case in the courts below against whose
orders the Special Leave Petition is sought for this
petition.
5. GROUNDS:
That the Petitioners are filing the instant Special
Leave Petition on the following amongst other grounds:
That the Petitioners are filing the Special Leave Petition
on the following amongst other grounds:
I. Because the subject matter of the present dispute
is of a civil nature and the criminal complaint
constitutes an abuse of the process of the court.
II. Because the Hon’ble High Court failed to
appreciate the content of the FIR to find out that
the allegation levelled in the same are absolutely
absurd and does not even make out any case.
The Petitioner herein case have been just added
to case even though she have not done any of the
offences that have been mentioned in the FIR, it
has been misunderstanding that lead her to
position.
III. Here the Hon’ble High Court have fail to
understand fact that the Petitioner cannot be
made guilty of cheating or fraudulent or dishonest
intention as per Section 419/420 IPC because the
act done by Nilank Kashyap who was neither an
employ of the Shonali Foods & Feeds Pvt. or
member of the company, so any act done by him
would solely be responsible for the misconduct.
IV. Again, the Hon’ble High Court fail to understand
that payment delay by the Petitioner was a done
due to no payment received from the Hudson
Foods Private Limited to the Petitioner as per the
agreement signed between them earlier, here it
was contractual dispute not matter to put up a
FIR.
V. In the Case of Rukmini Narvekar vs Vijay
Sataredkar & Ors on 3 October, 2008
“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."
Have been discussed as where can FIR has been

taken up for a with wrong or issue that would affect the
Petitioner’s company image and would destroy them in
the market.
VI. Again, the Offence of criminal breach of trust

punishable under Section 406, IPC.
(i) Entrustment of the property or any
dominion over property with accusation;
(ii) The person entrusted dishonestly
misappropriating or converting to his own
use that property; or dishonestly using or
disposing that property in violation of any
direction of law prescribing the mode in
which such trust is to be discharged or of
any legal contract, express or implied,
which he has made touching the
discharge of such trust or willfully causing
sufferance to any other person so to do.
Here in the present case the Respondent 2 has
informed in the FIR about a Bolero vehicle which is
in possession with Nilank Kashyap, therefore no case
can be put up against the Petitioner in the offence of
Section 406 of IPC.
VII. This extract is taken from Lakshman v. State of
Karnataka, (2019) 9 SCC 677 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri)
760 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1352 at page 681
“9. The learned Senior Counsel Shri R. Basant
appearing for the accused, in support of his case,
relied on the judgment of this Court in S.W.
Palanitkar v. State of Bihar [S.W. Palanitkar v. State of
Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 129] and
submitted that every breach of contract may not result
in a penal offence, but in the very same judgment, this
Court has held that breach of trust with mens rea gives
rise to a criminal prosecution as well. In a given case,
whether there is any mens rea on the part of the
accused or not is a matter which is required to be
considered having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and contents of the
complaint, etc. In the case on hand, it is clearly alleged
that even before entering into the agreement dated
26-9-2012, lands were already sold to third party,
which were agreed to be procured in favour of the
appellant. Not only that, it is the specific allegation of
the complainant that the cheques were issued towards
security from the account which was also closed much
earlier to the date of agreement itself.”
Here in the present case the Petitioner had no ill

intention or mens rea during the course of event, in fact it
was just mis-understanding between the Companies of
the Respondent and Petitioner, which led to the FIR.
VIII. The Hon’ble High Court in the Impugned
judgement have mentioned “Vesa Holdings
Private Limited vs State of Kerela& Others, (2015)
8 SSC 293” where the ingredients essential to
bring home the charge of cheating are mentioned
as per that in the present case the Petitioner here
have not fulfilled any of essential ingredients
mentioned.
IX. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar v.
State of Karnataka , wherein in paragraph No. 7 it
is held as follows:
“7. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet
Batra (supra), this court in Randheer Singh v.
State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that
criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to
as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty
V. State of West Bengal, 2023 SCC Online SC 90,
relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again
held that where a dispute which is essentially of
civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence,
then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising
the inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure.”
Herein the Petitioner’s case was of Civil nature
wherein there was some kind of misunderstanding
between both the parties as per the agreement
they have signed earlier but the Respondent have
gone ahead and filed false FIR, where the
Petitioner have not played any role in the false
transaction which were done, all the order of
items from the company were done by Nilank
Kashyap and his associates. These deal was done
by keeping the Petitioner in a blind side .
6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
A. BECAUSE the Petitioners would be unduly prejudiced

if the impugned order is allowed to stand. The
Petitioners are fully confident of a positive outcome in
the present Special Leave Petition and no prejudice
would be caused if the interim relief as prayed for
herein is granted.
B. BECAUSE the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss

and injury if the Impugned Judgements are not stayed.
Further the balance of convenience is in favour of the
Petitioners to grant the interim relief as prayed herein
and on the other hand n prejudice would be cause to
the Respondent in allowing the prayer for interim relief
7. MAIN PRAYER:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the

aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to:
(a) Grant Special Leave to appeal against the Final
Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the
Gauhati High Court at Guwahati in Criminal Petition
passed No. 1059 OF 2023; and
(b) pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper of the case, and in the
interest of justice.
8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

(a) Grantad-interim ex-parte stay operation of the

Final Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2024
passed by the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati
in Criminal Petition passed No. 1059 OF 2023
(b) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN
DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
Drawn by
Arijeet Borah &
Sana Parveen,
Filed by
(Adeel Ahmed)
Advocate for the petitioners
Drawn on: 01/11.2924

Filed on : 07/11/2024

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CRL.) NO. OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF :
Dipshikha Chaudhury
…..Petitioners
Versus
CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to

the pleadings before the court whose order is challenged,
and the other documents relied upon in those proceedings.
No additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken
therein or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is
further certified that the copies of the
documents/Annexures attached to the Special Leave
Petition are necessary to answer the question of law raised
in the petition for consideration of this Hon'ble Court. This
certificate is given on the basis of the instructions given by
the petitioner/person whose affidavit is filed in support of
the Special Leave Petition.
Filed by:-
(ADEEL AHMED)
FILED ON :11.07.2024 Advocate for the
petitioners

IN THE MATTER OF :
Dipshikha Chaudhury
…..Petitioners
Versus
Application For Condonation of Delay in Filing the SLP

To
The Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India and His
Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India
The humble petition of the
Petitioners abovenamed
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :
1. The present Special Leave Petition is preferred

against the Impugned Judgment and Final Order passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Jabalpur, vide judgment dated 08.04.2024 in
Misc.Criminal case No.52114 of 2023.
2. The Applicant-Petitioners hail from a very poor
background and stays in a remote part of Madhya
Pradesh. The Applicant took time to arrange for
documents for the present Petition.
3. That for the said reasons, there has been a delay in filing
the present SLP, and is not a deliberate or wilful attempt
on part of the Petitioner to delay the proceedings. It is
therefore, prayed that the same maybe allowed., and the
present matter is listed for hearing and adjudication
before this Hon’ble Court
PRAYER

Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to :-
(a) Condone the delay of days in filing

the present Special Leave Petition;
(b) and pass such other or further order or orders
which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case and in
the interest of justice.
FILED BY
(ADEEL AHMED)
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS
FILED ON: 11.07.2024

IN THE MATTER OF :
Dipshikha Chaudhury
…..Petitioners
Versus
Application Seeking Exemption From Filing Certified Copy

Of The Impugned Judgment
TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICE OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONERS ABOVENAMED
Most Respectfully Showeth:
1. The present Special Leave Petition is being preferred

by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur,
vide judgment dated 08.04.2024 in Misc.Criminal case
No.52114 of 2023.
2. The Petitioner has stated the facts of the case and
the grounds arising therefrom in the accompanying
Special Leave Petition and the same may be treated
as part and parcel of this Application.
PRAYER
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this
2. Exempt the petitioner from filing the Certified Copy of

the against the Impugned Judgment and Final Order
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
3. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of
justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN
DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY
FILED BY :
FILED ON: 11/07/2024 (ADEEL AHMED)
Advocate for the

Petitioner
IN THE MATTER OF :
MOHD AAKIB KHAN & Ors.
…..Petitioners
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh ….Respondents
Application For Condonation of Delay in Filing the SLP

To
4. The present Special Leave Petition is preferred

by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
5. The Applicant-Petitioners hail from a very poor
background and stays in a remote part of Madhya
Pradesh. The Applicant took time to arrange for
documents for the present Petition.
6. That for the said reasons, there has been a delay in filing
the present SLP, and is not a deliberate or wilful attempt
on part of the Petitioner to delay the proceedings. It is
therefore, prayed that the same maybe allowed., and the
present matter is listed for hearing and adjudication
before this Hon’ble Court
PRAYER

(c) Condone the delay of days in filing

the present Special Leave Petition;
(d) and pass such other or further order or orders
which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case and in
the interest of justice.
FILED BY
(ADEEL AHMED)
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS
FILED ON: 11.07.2024

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF :
Mustt. Jabeda Khatun …..Petitioners
Versus
The State of Union of India & Ors.
….Respondents
Application For Condonation of Delay in Re- Filing the SLP

To
1. The present Special Leave Petition is preferred against

the Impugned Judgment and Final Order dated
10/11/2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati
at Assam in Case No. W.P.(C)1535/2017.
2. That the petitioners have set out all the necessary

and important facts of the case in the above Petition and
for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition the
petitioner crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to refer to and
rely upon the same at the time of hearing of this
application.
3. That the Petitioner stays in a remote place and the

defects to be rectified therefore took time since the
requisite documents took time to be procured. This
caused delay in re-filing the above mentioned matter.
4. That no prejudice could be caused to the Petitioner if

the delay in refilling the petition is condoned by this
Hon'ble Court. On the other hand grave prejudice would
be caused to the petitioners if the prayer made herein
below is not allowed by this Hon'ble Court.
PRAYER

(a) condone the delay of days in Re-filing the Special

Leave Petition against the Impugned Judgment and Final
Order dated 10/11/2023 passed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Gauhati at Assam in Case No.W.P.(C)1535/2017.

which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
FILED BY
(ADEEL AHMED)
Advocate for the Petitioners
Filed on: 10/09/2024

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION C.) NO. OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF :
Mustt. Jabeda Khatun …..Petitioners
Versus
The State of Union of India & Ors.
….Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Adeel Ahmed Advocate for the Advocate –on –Record

14, Lawyers Chamber Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1. That I am the Advocate –on –Record in the above

mentioned matter and am well conversant with the facts
and circumstances of the case.
2. That the accompanying application for condonation

of delay in re-filing the Special Leave Petition has been
drafted by me upon instructions of the Petitioners which
is true and correct to the best of the knowledge of the
Petitioner.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION I, the deponent abovenamed do hereby

verify that averments made in this affidavit are true to
my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Verified at New Delhi on this 9th day of September, 2024

DEPONENT

IN THE MATTER OF :
Abdur Rahim …..Petitioners
Versus
Arjooara Begam ….Respondents
Application For Condonation of Delay in Re- Filing the SLP

To
1. The present Special Leave Petition is preferred against

the Impugned Judgment and Final Order Dated
18.01.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati
at Assam,in Case No.Crl.Pet. 413/2022.
2. That the petitioners have set out all the necessary

and important facts of the case in the above Petition and
for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition the
petitioner crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to refer to and
rely upon the same at the time of hearing of this
application.
4. That no prejudice could be caused to the Petitioners

if the delay in refilling the petition is condoned by this
PRAYER

(a) condone the delay of days in Re-filing the

Special Leave Petition against the Impugned Judgment
and Final Order Dated 18.01.2024 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Gauhati at Assam,in Case No.Crl.Pet.
413/2022.

which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
FILED BY
(ADEEL AHMED)
Filed on: 22/08/2024

IN THE MATTER OF :
Abdur Rahim …..Petitioners
Versus
Arjooara Begam ….Respondents
AFFIDAVIT



Petitioner.
DEPONENT

Verified at New Delhi on this 22nd day of August, 2024

DEPONENT
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
Md. Sabed Ali & Ors. … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam & Ors. …

Respondents
Application for Condonation of Delay in Filing the

SLP
To,

Companion
Justices of the Supreme Court of India
1. That the petitioners have filed the above Special

Leave Petition against judgement and order dated
18.03.2024 of the High court of the Gauhati High
Court at passed in Civil Writ Appeal No. 84 OF
2024;
2. That the petitioner has set out all the necessary and
important facts of the case in the above Special Leave
Petition and for the sake of brevity and to avoid
repetition the petitioner crave leave of this Hon’ble
Court to refer to and rely upon the same at the time of
hearing of this application.
3. That no prejudice could be caused to the Petitioner

if the delay in refilling the Special Leave Petition is
condoned by this Hon'ble Court. On the other hand grave
prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the prayer
made herein below is not allowed by this Hon'ble Court.
PRAYER


Special Leave Petition against judgement and order
dated 18.03.2024 of the High court of the Gauhati High
Court at passed in Civil Writ Appeal No. 84 OF 2024 (b)
Grant Any other Order or Direction as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper to be passed in the interest of
Justice & Equity:
FILED BY
(ADEEL AHMED)
Advocate for the Petitioner

Filed on: 14/08/2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
Narayan Chandra Manna … Petitioners
Versus
The UCO Bank & Ors. … Respondents
Application For Condonation of Delay in Re- Filing the

SLP
To

1. The present Special Leave Petition Arising out of the

impugned judgment & final order dated 08.04.2024
passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in C.O.
No. 2761 of 2023 is preferred hat the petitioners have set
out all the necessary and important facts of the case in
the above Petition and for the sake of brevity and to
avoid repetition the petitioner crave leave of this Hon’ble
Court to refer to and rely upon the same at the time of
hearing of this application.

4. That no prejudice could be caused to the Petitioners

if the delay in refilling the petition is condoned by this
PRAYER

Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to : -

Special Leave Petition against the Impugned Judgment
and Final Order Dated 28.08.2024 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court at Calcutta High Court C.O.No.2761 of 2023.

which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
FILED BY
(ADEEL AHMED)
Filed on: 27/09/2024

IN THE MATTER OF:
Narayan Chandra Manna … Petitioners
Versus
The UCO Bank & Ors. … Respondents
AFFIDAVIT



Petitioner.
DEPONENT

Verified at New Delhi on this 22nd day of August, 2024

DEPONENT

Dipshikha SLP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dipshikha SLP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dipshikha SLP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INDEX

Sl. Particulars Page No. of part of Remarks

The State of Assam & Anr. ….Respondents

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The petition is/ are within time.

2. The petition is barred by time and there is a delay of

4. (a) Main category classification: 14

ORDER XXII RULE 2(1) (a)

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. OF 2024

(Against the Impugned Judgment and Final Order

(PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)

Dipshikha Chaudhury …..Petitioners

The State of Assam & Anr. ….Respondents

(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

CRLMP No. of 2024: an Application for C/delay in filing

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: ADEEL AHMED

The present Special Leave Petition is being preferred

The Petitioner (a Director of Shonali Foods & Feeds Pvt.)

The Petitioner was introduced to the Company by One

Meanwhile there have been activity by Mr. Kashyap under

The Godown of the said Company is located in Sonapur,

The Petitioner begs to state that the Branch

True copy of the Consultant Engagement

17.03.202 That the Petitioner is young 30 year. Old

True copy of the GST Registration Certificate

01-03- As the authorised signatory, the Petitioner

The company did not give ledger of the

petitioner already make payment. Therefore,

16-05- That the Petitioner begs to state that to carry

True copies of the delivery notes w.e.f.

The compliant was based on the surprise visit

Also, a Bolero vehicle bearing registration WB

True copy of the First Information Report P.S.

21-08- The petitioner begs to state that during

Cr.P.C. and since then they are in judicial

True copy of the forwarding report dated

29-08- An Anticipatory Bail Application was placed

The accused Deep Sikha Choudhury have

The appeal was before Honourable Mr. Justice

Accordingly, the case dairy be called for

True copy of the Gauhati High Court, passed

31-08- An Anticipatory Bail Application was placed

The accused Deep Sikha Choudhury have

The appeal was before Honourable Mr. Justice

True copy of the Gauhati High Court, passed

01-09- The petitioner begs to state that the on

True copy of interim bail order Learned Addl.

15-09- The termination letter from The Hudson

True copy of the termination letter from The

16-10- An Anticipatory Bail Application was placed

The accused Nilam Medhi/ Nilank Kashyap

The appeal was before the court of

19-11- A reply letter from Ms. Dipshikha Choudhury

True copy of the reply letter from Ms.

22-11- An anticipatory bail application before The

The accused Dipshisha Chaudhury have

The Honourable Judge after hearing both

True copy of the Order Passed by the Addl.

22-08- The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the Case