Swati Bidhan Baruah vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 9371 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Swati Bidhan Baruah vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 11 December, 2025

                                                                         Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010055542021




                                                                  undefined

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./204/2021

            SWATI BIDHAN BARUAH
            D/O SUPTI RANJAN BARUAH, R/O PANDU BBC COLONY, RLY QUARTER
            NO 31/B, P.O.-PANDU, P.S.-JALUKBARI, DIST-KAMRUP(M), PIN-781012



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

            2:SURESH KUMAR EKKA
             PERMANENT ADD- MAHARATPUR
            TALUKA- SEETAPUR
             DIST- SARGUNA
             STATE- CHATTISGARH
             PRESENT ADD- BHUJ AIR FORCE STATION
             BLOCK NO. TV/21 (2254)
             DIST- KUTCH
             STATE- GUJARA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS. N MODI, MR A K AZAD,MR I AHMED,MS D K DOLEY,MR.
S N KRISHNATRAYA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
                                                                            Page No.# 2/3

                                 BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

                                        ORDER

Date : 11.12.2025

Heard Ms. S.B Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. B. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State.

This criminal petition has been filed seeking for quashing of certain FIR. The petitioner in person has appeared today and has submitted that despite several attempts to have served notices to the respondent No.2 at the last known address and as reflected in the FIR itself, the order dated 25.11.2025 has recorded that the un-served notices have been received back with postal remark such as; i) in vernacular language illegible, ii) being unclaimed and iii) being unclaimed. The petitioner has relied upon by the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Crl. Appeal No. 1523/2014 which held as follows;

"10. It is thus clear that Section 114 of the Evidence Act enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. Section 27 of the GC Act gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when, it is sent to the correct address by registered post. It is not necessary to aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice un-served, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business."

The learned Addl. P.P has also made his submission and this Court is of the opinion that since all efforts to serve notice to the last known address of the respondent No.2 had been made and the matter pertains to the year 2021, the Page No.# 3/3

notices on the respondent No.2 may be deemed to have been served as required in law. However, to protect the interest of the respondent No.2, this Court deems it fit and proper to appoint Amicus curiae to assist this Court. Accordingly, Ms. M K. Brown, be appointed as Amicus curiae to assist this Court in the matter.

List this matter again on 12.02.2026.

The petitioner shall ensure the service copy of the petition be served upon the learned Amicus curiae appointed by the Court.

Interim order passed earlier shall continue till the next date of listing.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant