Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Gauhati Single Bench of Justice Mitali Thakuria dismissed a petition seeking the transfer of criminal proceedings from Courts in Aizawl, Mizoram to Courts in Guwahati, Assam. The petition had been filed under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with two FIRs alleging a large-scale fraud involving over Rs.150 crores perpetrated against a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC).

The petitioner is a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) engaged in vehicle loan financing across India, including Mizoram. It discovered, through an internal audit, that it had allegedly been defrauded of over Rs.150 crores by its own employees in collusion with automobile dealers and other individuals. According to the petitioner, fictitious customer profiles and forged documents were used to sanction fake loans.

Also Read: Supreme Court Strikes Down Suo Motu Conviction In Appeal By Accused | Says High Courts Cannot Invoke Revisional Powers To Enhance Punishment

On the basis of a complaint by one Mr. Ankit Bagree, FIR No. 96 of 2024 was registered at Aizawl Police Station under Sections 408/467/468/34 of the IPC. Subsequent investigations revealed the existence of a fictitious bank account opened in the name of "Mahindra Finance Limited" through which approximately Rs.80 crores were routed. A second FIR (No. 03 of 2024) was filed by Mr. Charanpreet Singh, MMFSL’s country business head, under multiple IPC provisions including 408, 419, 466, 467, 472, 471, 477A, 120B, and 34, at the Crime & Economic Offences Police Station, Aizawl.

During investigation, a large-scale conspiracy was alleged wherein loans were disbursed to fake customers using forged documents. Vehicles were supposedly purchased from several dealers but never delivered, and funds were diverted to fake and benami accounts. Dealers such as Aidu Motors, National Business Enterprises, C.K. Hyundai, and Standard Motors (Bajaj) were named.

The main accused included Jakir Hussain and Paul Zothanpuia Johan, among others. Mr. Johan, arrested on 15.05.2024, was granted bail the next day by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aizawl. This bail order was later set aside, and remand was ordered. However, the accused secured anticipatory bail again, citing medical grounds.

The petitioner alleged procedural irregularities and interference in the investigation and trial process. It was further alleged that the reconstitution of the SIT led to the exoneration of previously identified accused individuals without explanation. Moreover, crucial electronic evidence allegedly seized from one of the main accused, such as a mobile phone and iPad, was said to be misplaced. A seizure witness reportedly mistook the iPad for a MacBook and denied witnessing the seizure of a phone.

Charge-sheets were filed in both FIRs in June and July 2024 respectively, but the petitioner claimed it was denied access to these charge-sheets for nearly two months. In one of the cases, charges had been framed; in the other, cognizance was yet to be taken. The petitioner also filed an SLP (Crl.) No. 13628/2024 before the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of bail granted to accused Dr. Madhurjya Sarmah, where notice was issued.

The petitioner contended that the trial process was being adversely influenced and that local pressures and repeated non-compliance with judicial orders were hindering justice. It submitted that substantial economic offences of public importance were involved, and that judicial supervision from outside the State was required to ensure fair proceedings.

In response, the State argued that the Gauhati High Court has a Permanent Bench at Aizawl, and hence the transfer application should have been presented there. It submitted that the investigation commenced immediately after the complaints were lodged, a SIT was constituted, and that 24 persons had been arrested. Charge-sheets were filed in both FIRs.

The prosecution further stated that a total of 73 witnesses were listed in the trial for FIR No. 96/2024 and 66 in FIR No. 03/2024, with supplementary charge-sheets adding 41 and 38 additional witnesses respectively. The prime accused remained in judicial custody since April 2024. Around 100 vehicles were seized during the course of the investigation.

The State contended that shifting the trial to Assam would impose logistical hardships, as most witnesses and accused were from Mizoram. Transporting evidence, documents, and accused persons would be burdensome and unnecessary.

The petitioner countered that the convenience of witnesses and accused should not outweigh the need for a fair and impartial trial. It reiterated that it feared the possibility of not receiving justice due to local influence.

The Court stated: "It is an admitted position that, based on two complaints, one filed by Mr. Ankit Bagree and another by a representative of the company, two separate cases were registered at Aizawl Police Station and Crime & Economic Offences Police Station, Aizawl, respectively."

Regarding investigation, the Court noted: "A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted, and accordingly, the matters were investigated and charge sheets were filed in both cases."

On procedural irregularities and allegations of unfairness, the Court remarked: "It is alleged by the petitioner that the investigation was not conducted fairly and that the prosecution did not take sufficient initiative during the trial to ensure justice for the informant/complainant."

However, the Court found: "From the discussions above, it is evident that in both cases, the IO has listed a considerable number of witnesses in the original and supplementary charge sheets."

The Court rejected the argument that local influence necessitated inter-state transfer, observing: "There appears to be no reason to interfere with the investigation at this stage, particularly since both matters have already been charge-sheeted."

On the issue of access to justice, the Court held: "If the apprehension is that the petitioner may not get proper justice in the Courts of Aizawl... the petitioner could have approached the Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench at Aizawl to seek transfer of the cases to any other District Court within the State of Mizoram."

It continued: "It also cannot be denied that both the witnesses and the accused would face considerable difficulty in attending Court proceedings in the State of Assam..."

Noting the logistical challenges, the Court stated: "Most of them are residents of Aizawl. Moreover, some of the accused are still in custody, and the prosecution would face challenges in producing them before a court located outside Mizoram."

The Court also noted the status of investigation: "The IO completed the investigation within a reasonable period... an SIT was constituted, and the investigation was conducted by the said SIT, leading to the filing of charge sheets."

On alternative remedies, the Court stated: "As alternatively prayed for, the petitioner may approach the Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench at Aizawl with a prayer for supervising the trial in both matters pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aizawl and learned District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl."

The Court concluded: "In the present circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for transferring the matters from the State of Mizoram to the State of Assam or Kamrup (M) for disposal."

The Bench further observed: "With the above observations, this transfer petition stands disposed of."

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Upholds Railway’s Termination Of Parcel Contract | Overloading By 134 Percent Posed Serious Safety Risk | No Violation Of Natural Justice Found

The Court advised that the petitioner "may approach the Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench at Aizawl to seek transfer of the cases from the Courts of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aizawl and learned District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl to any other Courts within Mizoram for the purpose of ensuring a proper and fair trial in the interest of justice."

The Court held that "possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses at this stage is minimal" and that "a sufficient number of witnesses have been listed by the IO to prove the case."

Therefore, no compelling reason was found to justify inter-state transfer.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. M. Goswami, Senior Counsel; Ms. S. Patowary; Mr. R. Singha

For the Respondents: Mr. B. Deb, Advocate General, State of Mizoram; Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, Additional Advocate General

Case Title: Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. State of Mizoram

Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AS:8596

Case Number: Tr.P.(Crl.)/27/2025

Bench: Justice Mitali Thakuria