Gauhati High Court
Smti. Bibha Paul vs The State Of Assam And 10 Ors on 4 September, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010195272025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5027/2025
SMTI. BIBHA PAUL
W/O DWIJENDRA NATH PAUL, WARD NO. 16, DHUBRI, PIN-783301, DHUBRI
DISTRICT, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ASSAM
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007
4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
DHUBRI
PIN-783301
DHUBRI DISTRICT
ASSAM
5:THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DHUBRI
PIN-783301
Page No.# 2/4
DHUBRI DISTRICT
ASSAM
6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GAURIPUR REVENUE CIRCLE
GAURIPUR
PIN-783331
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE
GAURIPUR POLICE STATION
PIN-783331
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
8:BATSU KARMAKAR
R/O SUBASH PALLY
P.S.- GAURIPUR
PIN-783331
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
9:SAMBHU SAHA
R/O SUBASH PALLY
P.S.- GAURIPUR
PIN-783331
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
10:RAJU SAHA
R/O SUBASH PALLY
P.S.- GAURIPUR
PIN-783331
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
11:SHANTANU SAHA
R/O SUBASH PALLY
P.S.- GAURIPUR
PIN-783331
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SISHIR DUTTA, MR D J MEDHI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM
Page No.# 3/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
04.09.2025
Heard Shri S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri D.J. Medhi,
learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri H. Sharma, learned Addl.
Senior Government Advocate as well as Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing
Counsel, Revenue Department.
The grievance of the petitioner is the alleged inaction of the Gauripur
Police Station with regard to an Ejahar lodged by the petitioner on 21.08.2025.
This Court vide order dated 29.08.2025, after referring to the case of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 had observed that the
scope of invoking the writ jurisdiction is very limited. However, the learned State
Counsel was directed to obtain instructions.
Shri H. Sharma, the learned State counsel has placed before this Court
written instructions furnished by the concerned Officer-in-Charge Gauripur P.S.
as per which the enquiry, pursuant to the Ejahar lodged on 21.08.2025 was
done which culminated in a non FIR proceeding against the accused persons
under Section 126 of the BNSS vide Gauripur PS NFIR Case No. 504/2025 and
the same has been sent to the learned District Magistrate, Dhubri.
As regards the case of Sakiri Vasu (supra), Shri Dutta, the learned Senior
Counsel has submitted that the facts of the case on which the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has been rendered are distinguishable. This Court is
Page No.# 4/4
however more concerned with the principles laid down in the aforesaid case and
the relevant observations are extracted herein below:
"27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide
powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper
investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to
ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot
investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of
filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 CrPC simply because a
person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police,
or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the
police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3)
before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under
Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint
under Section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under
Section 482 CrPC.
28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ
petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy
the High Court should not ordinarily interfere."
In view of the aforesaid discourse and the principles of law laid down, this
Court is of the opinion that no further interference is warranted and accordingly
the writ petition is dismissed.
The written instructions placed before this Court are made part of the
records.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
