Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 9572 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 15 December, 2025

                                                                       Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010263562025




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

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./1511/2025

            SHRI RAHUL KUMAR SHAH AND ANR
            SON OF SHRI. RATAN KUMAR SHAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -BONDA,
            GUWAHATI POST OFFICE - BONDA POLICE STATION - NOONMATI,
            DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781026

            2: SMTI SHAKUNTALA SHAH
            WIFE OF SHRI. RATAN KUMAR SHAH
             RESIDENT OF THIRD FLOOR
             HOUSE NO. 33
             MLB ROAD
             SILPUKHURI
             GUWAHATI
             POLICE STATION-CHANDMARI
             DISTRICT-KAMRUP M
            ASSAM
             PIN-78100

            VERSUS

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

            2:ANU KUMARI SINGH
            WIFE OF RAHUL SHAH
             RESIDENT OF 407A2
             SURYAVATIKA
             DHIRENPARA
             POST OFFICE - FATASIL AMBARI
             POLICE STATION - FATASIL AMBARI
             DISTRICT- KAMRUP M
            ASSAM
             GUWAHATI PIN-78102

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. T DEURI, MS. L WANGSA,MS A DAS,U
                                                                           Page No.# 2/3

BHARADWAJ,MRS. R S DEURI

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. MEHUL SHAH (R-2),MR. S C BISWAS (R-2),P
SHARMA (R-2),MR. P S BISWAS (R-2),MS. R DEVI (R-2)




                                 BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

                                       ORDER

15.12.2025

1. Heard Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P.S. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Trial Court issued notice in the case filed under the Domestic Violence Act without taking into consideration the report of the Protection Officer or the Service Provider. It was submitted by Mr. T. Deuri that, in view of this omission, the impugned order requires the interference of this Court. He relied upon the judgment and order dated 29.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No. 549/2021, wherein, under similar circumstances, the impugned order issuing notice was interfered with, and the matter was remanded to the learned Trial Court to consider the report of the Protection Officer and/or the Service Provider before deciding whether notices should be issued.

3. In the present case, Mr. Biswas, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that a report of the Protection Officer is, in fact, available on record in the Trial Court. However, he admits that the impugned order does not reflect that the said report was taken into consideration before issuing the notice.

4. In the facts and circumstances, as fairly admitted by the learned counsel for Page No.# 3/3

both parties, the order dated 04.07.2024 and all consequential orders are hereby interfered with, and the matter is remanded to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M). The Trial Court shall take into account the report of the Protection Officer, stated to be on record, and, if no such report is available, shall call for a fresh report from the Protection Officer. Thereafter, the Trial Court shall decide the necessity of issuing notices to the petitioner herein.

5. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant