Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010145222025 2025:GAU-AS:9488 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./850/2025 AMLANJYOTI PHUKON SON OF LATE SUREN PHUKAN RESIDENT OF ALICHUK DEODHAI GAON, P.O. MORABAZAR, P.S. AMGURI, DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SRI RAKHAL CHAKRABORTY SON OF LATE SAKTIDHAR CHAKRABORTY FOREST RANGER SOUTHERN RANGE KHERONI WEST KARBI ANGLONG P.S. KHERONI DIST. WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R BORA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 23.07.2025 Heard Mr R Bora, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms S H Bora, Page No.# 2/3 learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam/respondent No. 1 and Mr B Sarma, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Wildlife, for the respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner is presently serving as the Junior Manager (Electrical) and is an employee of the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL), Assam. 3. The respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge, Kheroni Police Station stating, inter alia, that on 16.12.2020, two wild elephants died due to electrocution caused from electric wires at Bogorighat paddy fields. The FIR has been registered as Kheroni Police Station Case no. 187/2020, under Section 429, Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 51 (1)/58 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 against the petitioner and another employee of APDCL inter-alia on the ground that the incident happened within their jurisdictional areas. 4. After investigation, a charge sheet being Charge Sheet No. 125/2020 came to be laid seeking trial of the two charge-sheeted accused persons therein, which includes the petitioner. The Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Karbi Anglong, Hamren, on 11.05.2023, finding a prima facie case, took cognizance of the offences, after accepting the charge-sheet and the case was transferred to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, West Karbi Anglong, Hamren for disposal. On 29.01.2025, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, West Karbi Anglong, Hamren in the concerned case, PRC Case No. 97/2023 allowed the petitioner to go on PR bond, till his appearance before the Court of Sessions. As the offences under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 are triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the case records of PRC Case No. 97/2023, were forwarded to the Court of Sessions, West Karbi Anglong, with a further direction to the charge-sheeted accused persons to remain present on the next date of posting, 22.02.2025 before the Court of Sessions, West Karbi Anglong. 5. The instant criminal petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been preferred seeking quashing and setting aside of the Order dated 11.05.2023 and Charge-Sheet No. 125/2020 dated 31.12.2020 apart from the quashing of the proceedings of PRC Case No. 97/2023, which have been registered as Sessions Case No. 04/2025. Page No.# 3/3 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has a remedy of seeking discharge under Section 250 of the BNSS. Section 250(2) of the BNSS has provided that if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. The accused, if aggrieved by his non-discharge, has further remedy in law. 7. As an order in the matter of discharge is to be decided after recording reasons; and after consideration of the records of the case, and the documents submitted therewith; this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner should exhaust the remedy under Section 250 of the BNSS, at first, before invoking the provisions of Section 528 of the BNSS, and/or Section 438 of the BNSS, and/or Section 442 of the BNSS. 8. For the afore-stated reason, this criminal petition is closed, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Court of Sessions, to invoke the provisions of Section 250 of the BNSS. It is further observed that it would remain open for the petitioner to seek recourse to appropriate remedy, in the event the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed under Section 250 of the BNSS. JUDGE Comparing Assistant