Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010059602018 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1857/2018 KAMALESWAR NAMASUDRA S/O LT. MURA HIRA R/O VILL AND P.O. SAT PAKHALI P.S. PALASHBARI, O.P. BIJOY NAGAR, DIST. KAMRUP (RURAL), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS THROUGH- THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM B.K. KAKOTI ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007. 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AMINGAON DIST. KAMRUP (RURAL) ASSAM 4:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE PALASHBARI POLICE STATION DIST. KAMRUP (RURAL) Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM 5:THE IN-CHARGE BIJOYNAGAR OUT POST DIST. KAMRUP (RURAL) ASSAM 6:RAM SINGH S/O HARI SINGH R/O BIJOYNAGAR P.O. BIJOYNAGAR P.S. PALASHBARI OUT POST BIJOY NAGAR DIST. KAMRUP (RURAL) ASSAM 7:GAGAN CHOUDHURY S/O LT. HANGHADHAR CHOUDHURY R/O VILL AND P.O. SAT PAKHALI P.S. PALASHBARI OUT POST BIJOYNAGAR DIST. KAMRUP (RURAL) ASSAM 8:JIBAN DAS S/O LT. BOGARAM DAS R/O VILL AND P.O. BIJOY NAGAR DIST. KAMRUP (RURAL) ASSA For the Petitioner(s) : None appears For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Roy, Govt. Advocate Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 17.07.2026 None appears on behalf of the Petitioner on call. Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. None appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.6 to 8. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the inaction on the part of the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 to take immediate action in respect to the FIR dated 17.03.2018 and arrest the accused persons, i.e. the Private Respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7. 3. This Court duly takes note of the fact that, at the relevant point of time when the FIR was lodged, i.e. on 17.03.2018, the Petitioner, instead of approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, ought to have approached the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 wherein the Supreme Court has categorically observed the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Page No.# 4/4 Constitution ought not to be exercised in such circumstances. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition for which the writ petition stands dismissed. 4. Before parting with the record, this Court observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude the Petitioner to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant