Gauhati High Court quashes charges against three contractors in the Kohima High Court road project CBI corruption case.
DIMAPUR — The Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against three partners of M/s Hexad Syndicate in the alleged High Court road construction scam, holding that the materials on record failed to disclose a prima facie case of cheating or criminal conspiracy.
Disposing of three connected criminal revision petitions through a common judgement on Friday, Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer set aside the Chief Judicial Magistrate's February 18, 2026 orders rejecting the accused's discharge applications and framing charges under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitions were filed by Thepfusatuo Rio, managing director of M/s Hexad Syndicate, and partners Mhalelie Rio and Vibeilietuo Kets, all of whom had been named as accused in Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Case No. 01/2025 arising out of RC-2(A)/2019-IMP under Section 120B & 420 IPC.
According to court records, the case relates to the construction of a two-kilometre double-lane High Court Road in Kohima, awarded to the firm in 2008.
The CBI had alleged that the contractors, in conspiracy with officials of Nagaland Public Works Department (Roads & Bridges), received excess payment for a road that was shorter and narrower than specified, causing wrongful loss to the state exchequer.
The FIR initially estimated the alleged excess payment at over INR 1.30 crore, though the charge sheet later revised the figure to about INR 29.68 lakh.
However, the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients required to frame charges of cheating and criminal conspiracy.
The court observed that there was no material to indicate dishonest intention on the part of the contractors at the inception of the contract, a key requirement for the offence of cheating.
It further held that allegations relating to measurement discrepancies or incomplete execution of contractual work, by themselves, amounted to contractual disputes and could not automatically be treated as criminal offences.
On the conspiracy charge, the court noted that prosecution sanction had been declined against the government engineers who had certified the measurements and processed the payments.
In the absence of evidence showing any agreement or meeting of minds between the contractors and public officials, the allegation of criminal conspiracy could not be sustained.
The judgement also recorded that the contractors had received only running account payments for work executed and that the remaining portion of the project could not be completed earlier because it depended on the completion of the new High Court building. The remaining stretch was subsequently completed, and a completion certificate was issued in March 2025.
Holding that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the High Court allowed all three revision petitions, quashed the orders rejecting discharge, set aside the charges framed by the trial court, and discharged the petitioners from the case.