[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 4 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010246862025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1361/2025
NIJAM UDDIN CHOUDHURY AND 3 ORS.
S/O- LATE ISUB ALI CHOUDHURY, VILL. P.O.- PANCHGRAM, P.S.-
PANCHGRAM, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM
2: SAMIM AHMED CHOUDHURY
S/O- ATAUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY
VILL. P.O.- KALINAGAR PT.V
P.S.- PANCHGRAM
DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
3: ABDUR RAFIE MAZMDER
S/O- ISMAIL ALI MAZUMDER
R/O- SILCHAR ROAD
NEAR HPC PAPER MILL
PANCHGRAM
P.S.- PANCHGRAM
DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM.
4: IKBAL HUSSAIN TALUKDAR
S/O- ABDUL JALIL TALUKDAR
R/O- PANCHGRAM NEW MARKET
P.S.- PANCHGRAM
DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:ATAUR RAHMAN LASKAR
Page No.# 2/5
S/O- LATE MUDORISH ALI LASKAR
VILL. MATIRGRAM
P.O. P.S.- ALGAPUR
DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM. PIN- 78815
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA, MS. N.A. LASKAR,MR. A BORUA,MS. S.
DEY,MR. N H BARBHUIYA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MISS R A CHOUDHURY (R-2),MR E AHMED(R-2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
ORDER
04.02.2026
Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N.H.
Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. E. Ahmed, learned
coun sel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. By this application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioners
have prayed for setting aside and quashing of the impugned FIR being
Panchgram P.S Case No. 59/2023 as well as the Charge-sheet submitted in
connection thereof on 31.08.2023 as well as the entire proceedings of the
Sessions Case No. 44/2025 pending in the Court of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Hailakandi. The petitioners have also challenged the Order
dated 14.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hailakandi
framing charges under Sections 143/148/448/323/353/307 and 149 of the IPC.
3. Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel has challenged the instant FIR as
well as the Charge-sheet and the subsequent proceedings mainly on one
Page No.# 3/5
ground, i.e., the Investigating Officer, who investigated the case and submitted
the Charge-sheet was the victim in the instant case, inasmuch as, it is stated in
the FIR, which is the second FIR lodged after few hours later than the first FIR
that the accused persons had entered the Police Outpost, where the
Investigating Officer was present and who had ordered the accused persons not
to enter the Outpost, but the accused persons did not pay any heed to the
request of the Investigating Officer, who was the I/C of the Police Station and
entered and assaulted the informant of the first FIR, i.e, Sh. Ataur Rahman
Laskar. He also placed the medical report of Sh. Ataur Rahman Laskar, who was
assaulted by the petitioners inside the Police Outpost and the Medical Report
showed that the nature of the injury was simple and fresh.
4. Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel also submitted that there was a
first FIR, which was lodged by Sh. Ataur Rahman Laskar against the petitioners,
wherein it was stated that the informant, while returning from Panchgram in his
private vehicle and reached a particular point, the petitioners obstructed the
way and attacked his vehicle. It was further stated that the victim, i.e., the
informant somehow managed to escape from the accused persons and took
shelter at the Police Outpost. However, the accused persons, i.e., the
petitioners, chased him forcefully, entered into the Outpost with the intention to
kill him and attacked him. It was also stated that the on-duty Police Personnel,
which would include the Investigating Officer, somehow rescued him from the
clutches of the petitioners and that the petitioners took away gold chain and
cash from the informant.
5. Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel further points out that the case
numbers in both the FIR are same, i.e., Panchgram P.S Case No. 59/2023.
Thereafter, he placed the Charge-sheet, which apparently seems to be in
Page No.# 4/5
connection with the second FIR, wherein it was stated that the petitioners had
forcefully entered the Outpost and without giving heed to the orders of the I/C
of the Outpost, entered into and assaulted the informant of the first FIR. He
thereafter states that the I/C, who was there in the Police Outpost was assigned
the duty to investigate the case and the said case was investigated by the said
Investigating Officer and the Charge-sheet was submitted by him. He as such
submits that the said I/C of Katakhal Police Outpost cannot be the Investigating
Officer of the instant case, since his orders were not followed and he was the
direct eye witness in the said case. He submits that in such a case, there cannot
be a fair investigation and the submission of Charge-sheet was bad in law. He
also submits that Section 353 is included both in the Charge-sheet as well as in
the charge framing order, which directly shows that the petitioners have
allegedly obstructed the Police Officer from doing their duties.
6. Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel has placed two Judgments to
substantiate his arguments, which is as follows:-
(1) Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1976 1 SCC
50.
(2) Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254.
Both the Judgments are placed in order to bring home the fact that there
has to be a fair investigation.
7. Mr. E. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that there
is no allegation that the petitioners have assaulted or in any manner did any act
against the Investigating Officer. The only averment stated in the FIR as well as
in the Charge-sheet is that the I/C of the Police Outpost had ordered the
petitioners not to enter the Outpost, but the petitioners without giving any
Page No.# 5/5
heed, entered into and assaulted the informant of the first FIR. As such, there
cannot be any prejudice caused to the petitioners concerned, if the said I/C is
made the Investigating Officer, which is done in the instant case.
8. Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State after perusing
the TCR has stated that the Charge-sheet has been submitted in connection
with the second FIR, as the contents of the Charge-sheet makes it clear thereto.
However, he is instructed to find out as to what happen to the first FIR, which
was lodged by Sh. Ataur Rahman Laskar, who is the informant and who was
assaulted by the petitioners. He submits that although the case numbers are
same, but the contents of the Charge-sheet showed that it is in connection with
the second FIR.
9. As such, it is directed that Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor
for the State may bring the instruction from the concerned Police Station as to
the fate of the first FIR that was lodged by Sh. Ataur Rahman Laskar on
28.06.2023.
10. List the matter again on 06.02.2026.
11. A copy of the order may be furnished to Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor for his onward transmission to the concerned Police Station.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
