Page No.# 1/7 vs Smti Rani Baruah And Anr on 3 February, 2026

                                                                   Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010181022011




                                                            undefined

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

                         Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./64/2011

         MAMIN BARUAH and 2 ORS
         S/O LT. MOHESWAR BARUAH, R/O VILL. KACHUA, DHALPUR, PO.
         KACHUA, PS. BIHPURIA, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, POSTED AT 27 BN,
         SSB, NARKATIAGANJ, DIST. WEST CHAMPARAN, BIHAR.

         2: PUTOLI BARUAH

          W/O LT. MOHESWAR BARUAH
          R/O VILL. KACHUA
          DHALPUR
          PO. KACHUA
          PS. BIHPURIA
          DIST. LAKHIMPUR
          ASSAM

         3: HIRANYA BARUAH

          S/O LT. MOHESWAR BARUAH
          R/O VILL. KACHUA
          DHALPUR
          PO. KACHUA
          PS. BIHPURIA
          DIST. LAKHIMPUR
          ASSA

         VERSUS

         SMTI RANI BARUAH and ANR
         W/O MAMIN BARUAH, R/O VILL. TOKOWBARI, PO/PS. GAHPUR, DIST.
         SONITPUR, ASSAM. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.11, SILPUKHURI,
         PO. SILPUKHURI, PS. CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI-3, DIST. KAMRUP M,
         ASSAM.

         2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
                                                                          Page No.# 2/7


Advocate for the Petitioner   : MRK KALITA, MR.D HANDIQUE,MR.J C GOGOI

Advocate for the Respondent : , ,PP, ASSAM

                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

                                             ORDER

Date : 03.02.2026 None appears for the petitioner on call. Heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

2. This revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 10.01.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup, Guwahati

in C.R Case No. 4055c/2010 taking cognizance of the case without having territorial jurisdiction.

3. The case of the respondent No.1/complainant before the learned trial court was that the respondent No.-1 Smti Rani Baruah lodged a complaint case for prosecution against the present petitioners U/S 498(A) alleging inter- alia therein that her marriage was solemnized on 31-08-2007 with petitioner No.-1. The petitioner No.-1 is a Govt. employee and for the interest of his service he remains outside of his residence and occasionally used to come home. After a few months she came to know that her husband is a heavy drinker and being intoxicated tortures her at any time, especially at bed time for which she had to spend many sleepless nights. The petitioner No.-1 has illicit affairs with the maid servant namely 'Niyanti" while the complainant tried to reform she had been beaten up badly. The petitioner No.-1 demanded dowry articles. They pressed her to bring money (Rs. 1,00,000/-) from her parents to purchase motorcycle and electric inverter. In this way the other two accused persons instigated her husband. While the petitioner no.-1 remains outside home the other two Page No.# 3/7

petitioners misbehave with the complainant saying that she is not beautiful and she cannot bring more dowry articles. While the complainant answers a single word she was beaten up by the petitioner No.-2 and 3. That in absence of the petitioner No.-1 the petitioner No.-2 and 3 tried to kill her by pouring Kerosene Oil over her body on 19-07-2008. But fortunately she was saved. While she informed to the petitioner No.-1 all about the matter what had happened on 19- 07-2008 then the accused No.-1 took the complainant to her mother's house and put her there saying that she would be taken to his service place. But till date he did not do so. While the complainant conceived her pregnancy was damaged due to physical torture. Getting no way she again returned back to the house of the petitioners on last 04-11-2010. But this time again the petitioner No.-1 demanded the complainant to purchase a Motor Cycle and one Electric Inverter. When the complainant expressed inability to purchase all these things, all the petitioners have badly beaten her and the complainant had to come back to the residence of her parents.

It is submitted that the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati examined the complainant as well as Smti Jyoti Bora the mother of the complainant as witness U/S 202 Cr. P. C and by order dated 11- 01-2010 had taken cognizance of case and accordingly issued summons to the petitioners for their appearance fixing on 30-03-2010 without having territorial jurisdiction to try the case.

4. Being aggrieved, the instant revision has been preferred.

5. None has appeared for either party. The case is a pending matter relating to the year 2011 and also considering the fact, as reflected by the record, on several occasions none has appeared for the parties, i propose to dispose of the Page No.# 4/7

present petition.

6. The impugned order dated 10.01.2011 may be reproduced herein below:-

"In the Court of N.K. Das, Judicial Magistrate (14 Class), Guwahati.

C.R. 4055C/10 20-11-10 The case record has been transferred to Sri NK Das, Judicial Magistrate Is Class for disposal.

Sd/- Illegible Chief Judicial Magistrate Kamrup, Guwahati.

20-11-10: Case record received on transfer for disposal. Complainant is present. She is examined U/s 200 Cr.P.C. and her statement is recorded. Perusal of the complaint reveals that all the 3 (three) accused person resides beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.

Therefore, in view of Section 202 Cr.P.C. issuance of process is postponed and the complainant is called upon to produce her witnesses for inquiry U/s 202 Cr.P.C.

Fixing 9-1-2011 for inquiry U/s 202 Cr.P.C.

Sd/- Illegible 10-1-11: C/R is put up today as yesterday was holiday. Complainant is present. One witness Mrs. Jyoti Baruah is examined U/s 202 Cr.P.C. On perusal of the complaint, statement of the complainant and the witness examined U/s 202 Cr.P.C., I find prima facie materials of offence U/s 498A/34 IPC against the accused persons named in the complaint.

Accordingly cognizance of the aforesaid offence is taken. Issue summon to the accused person.

Complainant to take step. Fix 30-3-11 for app."

Page No.# 5/7

7. It is not disputed that the present petitioner/accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Court below i.e. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup, Guwahati.

8. The petitioners are permanent resident of Lakhimpur district.

9. Section 200 Cr.P.C reads as follows:-

"Section 200 Cr.P.C. - Examination of complainant

A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:

Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses--

(a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or

(b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under Section 192:

Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under Section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re- examine them.

Section 202 Cr.P.C. - Postponement of issue of process (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either--

Page No.# 6/7

(a) inquire into the case himself; or

(b) direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:

Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made-

(a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or

(b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, have been examined on oath under Section 200.

(2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath:

Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.

(3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station, except the power to arrest without warrant."

10. A bare perusal of Section 202 Cr.P.C. would show that where the accused resides at a place beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, the Magistrate is mandatorily required to postpone the issuance of process and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The only exception carved out therein is where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable Page No.# 7/7

exclusively by the Court of Session in which case he is to act as per the proviso to Section 202(2). The further requirement is that, in other cases i.e. non- sessions triable cases, where the complaint is not made by a Court, the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, have to be examined on oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C, before directing investigation by the police.

11. In other words, clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 202 Cr.P.C. would show that when a complaint is made by a private person or entity which is not a Court, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, on oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and only thereafter is the Magistrate empowered to direct an investigation by a police officer or other person as he thinks fit, as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 202 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the learned JMFC straightaway took cognizance of the matter after recording the initial depositions of the complainant and the witnesses present, without directing an investigation to be made by a police officer or other person for the purpose of deciding whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding. Which is impermissible in law.

12. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 10.01.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup, Guwahati, cannot be sustained.

13. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

14. Send back the TCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant