Debajyoti Sarkar vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 8095 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Debajyoti Sarkar vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 28 October, 2025

                                                                           Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010233832025




                                                                 undefined

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

                                Case No. : Crl.Pet./1294/2025

            DEBAJYOTI SARKAR
            S/O NARAYAN SARKAR
            R/O VILL- PUTHIMARI
            P.S. BOKO
            DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM
            PIN- 781123



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM.

            2:BINITA BISWAS
             D/O SRIMANTA BISWAS
            R/O VILL- 2 NO. TRILOCHAN
             P.S. BOKO
             DIST. KAMRUP
            ASSAM
             PIN-78112

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A AHMED, MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MR. M A
CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
                                                                        Page No.# 2/4


                               BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

                                    ORDER

28.10.2025

Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondents.

By this application filed under Section 528 of the BNS, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the FIR dated 18.06.2025 being numbered as Boko Police Station Case No. 206/2025 registered under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023.

The FIR dated 18.06.2025 lodged by the victim reveals that she was in a love relationship with the petitioner and that the petitioner had promised her to marry and due to such promise, there was a physical relationship between them. The informant further stated that she came to know that the accused person was getting married to another girl and that she lodged the ejahar.

Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ingredients of Section 69 BNS are not attracted in the instant case, inasmuch as, there was no intention not to marry the informant on the part of the petitioner and neither there was any refusal to marry her later. He submits that the said statements made in the FIR were too pre-mature, in view of the fact that the informant had stated that she came to know that the petitioner was marrying someone else and had lodged the ejahar. He submits that there was no refusal on the part of the petitioner to marry the informant and that the informant only on suspicion, which was not on any basis, had lodged the ejahar.

To substantiate his arguments, he has placed reliance on the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, by which the Hon'ble Apex Court had Page No.# 3/4

observed that in absence of any allegation to the effect that promise to marry given to the victim was false at the inception, Section 69 BNS cannot be attracted in the said case.

Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor however submits that the said FIR cannot be stated to be a pre-mature FIR, inasmuch as, the victim immediately on knowledge that the petitioner would marry another girl had lodged the ejahar. He further submits that the victim had stated her age to be 18 years and the relationship was stated to have been going on since 3½ years and as such, other offence might be revealed during the investigation of the said case.

Call for the Case Diary.

Issue notice to the respondents.

Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appears for the respondent No. 1 and as such, no formal notice is required to be served upon him. However, the petitioner to take steps for service of notice upon the respondent No. 2 by registered post with A/D as well as by usual process.

In view of the fact that in the said ejahar, the victim had not stated that the petitioner had given her false promise and on the basis of that, he established physical relationship with her. She had stated that the accused had promised to marry her and had established physical relationship with her. She further states that she later came to know that the petitioner would marry someone else and she lodged the ejahar.

Refusal later, even if such is the case, will not attract Section 69 of the BNS, 2023. What is required is the initial intention not to marry the victim and establish physical relationship with her. However, the same is not revealed in the Page No.# 4/4

instant case. As such, this Court finds it fit that the FIR dated 18.06.2025 culminating in registration of as Boko Police Station Case No. 206/2025 under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 be stayed till the next returnable date.

List the matter after 3 (three) weeks.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant