Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010207732025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/66/2025 RAMJAN ALI S/O- AJNUR ALI, R/O- VILL.- GANAKJHAR, P.O. MAHAJANPARA, P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI, PIN- 781366, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEAD QUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007. 3:THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KAMRUP AMINGAON DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781031. 4:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE BAIHATA CHARIALI POLICE STATION DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781121. 5:KASIM ALI S/O- LATE MOBHAT ALI R/O- VILL.- GANAKJHAR P.O. MAHAJANPARA Page No.# 2/4 P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST. KAMRUP. ASSAM. PIN- 781366. 6:BIKI ALI S/O- KASIM ALI R/O- VILL.- GANAKJHAR P.O. MAHAJANPARA P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST. KAMRUP. ASSAM. PIN- 781366. 7:RASIA BEGUM W/O- RAMJAN ALI C/O- KASIM ALI R/O- VILL.- GANAKJHAR P.O. MAHAJANPARA P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST. KAMRUP. ASSAM. PIN- 781366 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G R A MOTTAQUEE, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 10.09.2025 SK Medhi, J Heard Shri GRA Mottaquee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri HK Hazarika, learned Government Advocate, Assam. This matter has been moved by means of a Mention Memo as it was projected that a writ of Habeas Corpus was sought for. The projected case is that the wife of the petitioner has been forcefully taken away by the respondent no. 6 and is in his captivity. The petitioner has, however annexed a communication dated 06.09.2025 issued by the wife of the petitioner that on her own volition has gone away with the said respondent no. 6. Page No.# 3/4 Under those facts and circumstances, the aspect as to whether a writ of Habeas Corpus would lie or not is itself debatable. As regards the other part of the writ petition regarding inaction on the part of the police in lodging FIR by the petitioner, law is well settled and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, including in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 has laid down the followings: “27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 CrPC simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. 28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.” At this stage, Shri Mottaquee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would like to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty to approach the appropriate forum. Page No.# 4/4 The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on withdrawal with liberty, as prayed for. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant