Gauhati High Court
Pulak Kalita vs The State Of Assam on 10 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010206442025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1011/2025
PULAK KALITA
S/O LATE HIREN KALITA, GAUHATI HIGH COURT STAFF QTRS, QTRS NO.
15, 3RD FLOOR, MALIBAGAN, LATASIL, GUWAHATI CENTRAL, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:PRASANNA KAKATI
S/O LATE HANSHARAM KAKATI
GAUHATI HIGH COURT STAFF QTRS
QTRS NO. 13
3RD FLOOR
MALIBAGAN
LATASIL
GUWAHATI CENTRAL
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, U U KHAN,MR. M A CHOUDHURY,MR. I U
CHOWDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 10.09.2025
1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This interlocutory application has been filed by the applicant praying
Page No.# 2/3
for staying of the proceedings of PRC Case No. 2046/2025 pending before the
Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), during the
pendency of the connected Criminal Petition No. 328/2024.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
aforesaid petition by order dated 21.03.2024, this Court directed that no
coercive action should be taken against the petitioner, however, in the
meanwhile, the charge-sheet has been laid.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when an order for
not taking any coercive action is passed by a Court in a criminal proceeding,
even the charge-sheet may not be filed as filing of charge-sheet during
subsistence of such an order not taking of coercive action would subject the
concerned officer to contempt jurisdiction of this Court. In support of his
submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex
Court in the case of "Satish Kumar Ravi Vs. State of Jharkhand" [Order dated
29.11.2024 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 9859/2023].
5. Issue notice to the respondents.
6. Since, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has appeared for the
respondent No. 1, no formal notice need to be issued to the said respondent.
7. As regards the respondent No. 2 is concerned, the petitioner shall take
steps for issuance of notice upon the said respondent through the Officer-in-
charge of jurisdictional Police Station within three days from the date of this
order, returnable after four weeks.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has, on the other hand,
Page No.# 3/3
placed a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of "Najma Aslam Merchant Vs.
State Of Maharashtra and Ors." [Order dated 28.03.2025 passed in Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) diary No. 15379/2025], wherein the Apex Court has observed
that the use of phrase "no coercive action" would not debar the Investigating
Agency to continue with the investigation.
9. On this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there
is no dispute that investigation may be continued, however, he submits that in
view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of " Satish Kumar Ravi Vs.
State of Jharkhand" (supra), on culmination of investigation during the
subsistence of an order of "no coercive action", before filing the charge-sheet,
the Investigating Officer should obtain leave of the Court which had issued the
order of no coercive action.
10. Though, the Apex Court has observed in the case of " M/S Neeharika,
Infrastructure Pvt. Limited Vs. The State of Maharashtra" (Criminal Appeal No.
330/2021) that while passing an order for not taking any coercive action, the
Court should clarify as to what it meant by the phrase "coercive action",
however, in view of the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, till
the next returnable date, the further proceedings of PRC Case No. 2046/2025
pending before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kamrup(M) is hereby stayed.
11. List accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
