Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010126732025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./678/2025 SMT. BORNALI BISWAS W/O- SAPAN BORAH C/O- BHOGESWAR BORAH, F-204, SATVAM PARKLANE, NEAR ASKA HOSPITAL ,VTC - SARGASAN, DISTRICT- GANDHINAGAR, GUJARAT. PIN-382421. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE LD, PP, ASSAM. 2:DUTTA SHARMA S/O- RAM CH. SHARMA. R/O- EX POLICE LINE P.S - TEZPUR DISTRICT- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-78400 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S DUTTA, S. DUTTA,S. DUTTA,MS K BORAH,MS S MOCHAHARI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 16.06.2025 Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondents. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS Act, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR pertaining to Tezpur P.S. Case No. 1044/2019 registered under Sections 290/325/294/506/34 corresponding to PR Case No. 1376/2022 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur and the legality and validity of the Order dated 24.08.2022 in PR Case No. 1376/2022 taking cognizance against the accused under Sections 290/325/294/506/34 by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (s), Sonitpur, Tezpur. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 16.06.2019, an FIR was lodged by the respondent No. 2/informant alleging that the accused No. 1 entered in an adjoining room in a drunk condition and started creating nuisance without any reason and due to the nuisance and hue and cry, the respondent No. 2 came out of his room and tried to stop the accused No. 1 from creating any further nuisance, however, the petitioner came with a cup in her hand and hit the respondent No. 2 in his left shoulder causing grievous hurt to him. It is further alleged that the petitioner used obscene language and also threatened the respondent No.2 with his life. Accordingly, a case was registered. 4. Upon completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was submitted vide FR/Charge-sheet No. 652/22 and registered PR Case no. 1376/22 under Page No.# 3/4 Sections 290/325/294/506/34 IPC. Thereafter, the jurisdictional Magistrate Court on 24.08.2022 took cognizance of the matter and fixed the matter for appearance of the petitioner and the co-accused. Aggrieved by the aforesaid cognizance order, the present criminal petition has been filed. 5. Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case of grievous hurt is made out on the face of the allegation made in the FIR and therefore, the cognizance order is bad in law. He further submits that the petitioner was not present on the alleged place of occurrence on the date in question. 6. Per contra, Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that it is apparent reading from the FIR that allegation of criminal offence is clearly made out. He further submits that the instant criminal petition is against an FIR lodged in the year 2019 and an order of taking cognizance dated 24.08.2022 and the criminal petition is filed after almost delay of 3 years. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the contending parties and have perused the materials available on record. 8. Perusal of the FIR indicates that there are allegations that, if proved, would constitute a criminal offence. 9. Reading of the cognizance order also indicates that the jurisdictional Magistrate Court upon perusing the Charge-sheet and the materials made available, was satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused person has committed the offence under the charged sections and accordingly took cognizance against the accused person, including the petitioner Page No.# 4/4 under Sections 290/325/294/506/34 IPC. 10. The contention of Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner as regards the petitioner not being present at the place at the time of occurrence is a matter of trial and the same cannot be gone into at the stage of taking cognizance. Moreover, the instant criminal petition has been filed after a delay of almost 3 years from the date of taking cognizance. 11. In any view of the matter, this Court finds no illegality in the order of taking cognizance. Hence, the instant criminal petition is bereft of any merit whatsoever and the same is dismissed. 12. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant