Tripura HC Quashes FIR Against DDO in Rs. 3.19 Crore RMSA Fraud: No Evidence She Forged Cheques or Misappropriated Funds
The High Court of Tripura discharged a Drawing and Disbursing Officer from a corruption case after finding the charge-sheet contained no material linking her to forgery or misappropriation of public money.
Justice Biswajit Palit, sitting singly at the High Court of Tripura at Agartala, has quashed the criminal proceedings against Smt. Ambalika Datta, a public servant who served as Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) in the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) directorate. The proceedings arose from West Agartala P.S. Case No.60 of 2015, which alleged a conspiracy to misappropriate approximately Rs. 3.19 crore from the RMSA bank account through 93 forged cheques. The court found that the charge-sheet placed no material on record showing that Datta had forged any signature, withdrawn any money, or caused any amount to be deposited in her account. Her prior exoneration in departmental proceedings on the same facts added further weight to the conclusion that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process.
The Fraud and How Datta Came to Be Chargesheeted
The case has its origins in a complaint dated 5 September 2014 by Sri Manabendra Chakraborty, the then Joint Director of the Directorate of School Education, against one Arnab Chakraborty, an LDC and cashier of RMSA. That complaint led to West Agartala P.S. Case No.156 of 2014 under Sections 403, 468, 471, 477A, 309 IPC with Section 120B IPC and Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Ambalika Datta was not named in that FIR.
During investigation of Case No.156 of 2014, the Investigating Officer, Sanjoy Biswas, SDPO, New Capital Complex, discovered a separate and larger fraud. He submitted a suo motu complaint on 19 May 2015 alleging that Arnab Chakraborty, in conspiracy with others, had unauthorisedly withdrawn approximately Rs. 3.19 crore from RMSA's account at the Tripura State Co-operative Bank, Secretariat Branch, using about 93 forged cheques between 24 January 2014 and 2 September 2014. This complaint was registered as West Agartala P.S. Case No.60 of 2015 under Sections 120B, 409, 468, 471, 477A and 420 IPC and Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Datta was again not named in this FIR.
When the charge-sheet was eventually filed in Case No.60 of 2015, Datta was implicated as an accused for the first time. The prosecution's case against her rested on two cheques on which she had put her own signatures, with the allegation that the signature of another authorised signatory, one B. Debbarma, was forged on those cheques, and that she had been negligent as DDO in failing to maintain the cash book and allowing withdrawals without proper oversight.
Four Grounds Raised for Quashing
Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Senior Advocate, appearing with Mr. Biswajit Manna and Mr. Sankar Lodh for Datta, pressed four distinct grounds before the court.
The first was that a second FIR on the same subject matter was not legally permissible. Relying on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 181, counsel argued that once an FIR is registered and investigation commenced, any further information on the same transaction must be treated as a statement under Section 162 CrPC and cannot be registered as a fresh FIR. The proper course was to seek further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, which the Investigating Officer did not do.
The second ground was departmental exoneration. An order dated 4 July 2022 by the Inquiring Authority, followed by an order dated 17 November 2022 by the Secretary of the School Education Department, exonerated Datta from the charge of misappropriation of public money in departmental proceedings. Counsel relied on Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr., (2020) 9 SCC 636, where the Supreme Court had discharged an accused after noting that a detailed Central Vigilance Commission order exonerating him made the chances of conviction in a criminal trial on the same facts appear bleak.
The third ground was absence of sanction. Section 197(1) CrPC and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act both require prior government sanction before a court can take cognizance of offences alleged to have been committed by a public servant in the discharge of official duty. Counsel submitted that no such sanction was obtained or placed before the Trial Court, rendering the cognizance order bad in law.
The fourth ground was absence of material evidence. Neither the FIR nor the investigation produced any evidence that Datta had forged signatures, withdrawn money, or received any part of the misappropriated funds.
State's Response: Negligence Revealed During Investigation
Learned Special P.P. Ms. Madhumita Chowdhury, appearing for the State, conceded that Datta was not named in either FIR but submitted that her prima facie involvement emerged during investigation. The Investigating Officer had collected material showing she was negligent as DDO, allowing withdrawals without maintaining the cash book. The departmental exoneration, the State argued, was for want of documents and did not foreclose criminal liability.
On the sanction question, the Special P.P. relied on Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr., (2024) 11 SCC 747, where the Supreme Court held that Section 197 CrPC does not protect a public servant whose alleged act — fabrication of records or misappropriation of public funds — is not an act done in the discharge of official duty. The official capacity may have enabled the act, but that does not make it an official act. On this basis, the State argued that no sanction was required and the petition should be dismissed.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Palit examined the charge-sheet carefully. On the second-FIR argument, the court noted that Datta was not an accused in West Agartala P.S. Case No.156 of 2014. Because she was not a party to the earlier case, the bar against a second FIR in respect of the same accused could not strictly apply to her. The court declined to quash the proceedings on that ground alone.
The court's reasoning turned decisively on the absence of incriminating material. The prosecution's own case was that Arnab Chakraborty was the custodian of the RMSA cheque book and that he had manipulated signatures and withdrawn money keeping Datta in the dark. Of the 93 cheques, only two were attributed to Datta — cheques on which she had signed in her own name. The prosecution alleged that on those two cheques, the signature of B. Debbarma was forged by someone. But the court found no evidence that Datta had forged Debbarma's signature, that she had withdrawn the money, or that any part of the withdrawn amount was deposited in her account.
The Investigating Officer's position was that Datta could not give a satisfactory reply during investigation and had violated norms by allowing withdrawals without maintaining the cash book. The court found this insufficient. Negligence in maintaining official records is not the same as active participation in forgery or criminal misappropriation. The prosecution had not placed any material showing that withdrawals were made at Datta's instance or that she had converted public money for personal use.
On the departmental exoneration, the court noted that a separate departmental proceeding had been drawn up specifically on the ground of negligence and that Datta had been exonerated from those charges. The court held that on the ground of negligence, no criminal liability could be fastened upon her in this prosecution either.
Witness statements recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation also revealed nothing connecting Datta to the alleged crime.
The court also addressed the petitioner's right to approach the High Court directly rather than the Trial Court. Relying on Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749, the court accepted that where a charge-sheet makes out no case against an accused and the accused has challenged the charge-sheet itself, there is no bar to invoking Section 482 CrPC before the High Court rather than seeking discharge before the Trial Court.
The court concluded: “no materials could collect by the prosecution in this case against the petitioner-accused to establish/stand the charge against her.”
Order
Justice Biswajit Palit allowed the petition filed under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC). The entire proceeding against Smt. Ambalika Datta in West Agartala P.S. Case No.60 of 2015, corresponding to Special (PC) Case No.04 of 2015 connected to West Agartala P.S. Charge-Sheet No.67 of 2025 dated 30 June 2025, under Sections 120B, 409, 468, 471, 477A and 420 IPC read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, stands quashed. Datta is discharged from liability in the case and her surety, if any, is also discharged. The record is to be sent down to the Trial Court along with a copy of the judgment. The Case Diary, if any, is to be returned to the Investigating Officer through the Public Prosecutor along with a copy of the judgment. All pending applications stand disposed of.