Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010214562025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1056/2025 GAURAV UPADHYAYA S/O- LT. SHYAM SUNDAR UPADHYAY, R/O- DIPHU, KARBI ANGLONG, PIN- 782460, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM ASSAM 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781005 3:CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPTT. ASSAM POLICE ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781005 4:SMT. ARUNIMA BHUYAN ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (ACP) WOMEN UNIT ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION PANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 5:SMT. LEENA DOLEY W/O- LT. NILOTPAL LAHAN R/O- ZONE-II POLICE OFFICERS HOUSING COMPLEX ULUBARI GUWAHATI-78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR. M A CHOUDHURY,MR. I U CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR A C BORBORA Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 19.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. A. A. Mir, learned counsel for the informant. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Gaurav Upadhyaya, in connection with Criminal Petition No. 55/2020 praying for staying of the proceedings of POCSO Case No. 37/2021 under Sections 354/354A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 arising out of All Women P.S. Case No. 5/2020. 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing No. WP(C) No. 258/2020 challenging the FIR on the basis of which All Women P.S. Case No. 5/2020 was registered. By order dated 10.01.2020, this Court stayed the further investigation of All Women P.S. Case No. 5/2020 till next returnable date as an interim measure. Later on, the said petition was re-numbered as Criminal Petition No. 55/2020. 4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by order dated 23.07.2020 passed in Criminal Petition No. 55/2020, this Court allowed the investigation to go on so that the progress of investigation does not suffer on account of pendency of the Criminal Petition No. 55/2020. It was also directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that by the aforesaid order this Court Page No.# 3/6 also directed the investigation to be supervised and monitored on day-to-day basis by the Additional Director General of Police (CID), Assam. It was also directed that the entire investigation conducted would be considered by the Additional Director General of Police (CID), Assam and decision would be taken by the Investigating Agency only with the concurrence of the Additional Director General of Police (CID), Assam. 5. It is pertinent to mention herein that against the order dated 23.07.2020, passed by this Court in the connected criminal petition, the informant approached the Apex Court challenging the aforesaid order on the ground that the said order had restricted the scope of investigation to documentary evidence in regard to caste status of the victim. However, the Apex Court by order dated 11.09.2020 passed in SLP (Criminal) Nos. 3704- 3705/2020 clarified that the impugned order dated 23.07.2020 passed by this Court shall not constrict the duty of the Investigating Officer to investigate into all aspects of the complaint nor does it confine the investigation to documentary material. 6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the meanwhile by violating the interim order dated 23.07.2020, the Investigating Officer laid the charge-sheet (Charge-sheet No. 44/2021, dated 31.03.2021) against the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the charge-sheet was laid without obtaining leave of the Court or permission of the Additional Director General of Police (CID), Assam as directed by order dated 23.07.2025. 7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that whenever an order directing that “no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner” is passed by a Court, the leave of the said Court shall have to be Page No.# 4/6 taken by the petitioner before filing the charge-sheet. He submits that if same is not done it would be violation of the order of the Court. He submits that filing of the charge-sheet without taking leave of the Court would subject the Investigating Officer to the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Satish Kumar Ravi vs. The State of Jharkhand” [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9859/2023, order dated 29.11.2024].The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed for staying the further proceeding of POCSO Case No. 37/2021 pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong during the pendency of the connected Criminal Petition No. 55/2020. 8. 8. On the other hand, Mr. A. A. Mir, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that in the instant case, charge-sheet was laid after completion of the investigation in the year 2021, however, the petitioner on one or other pretext is trying his best to halt the trial of POCSO Case No. 37/2021. He further submits that after four years of submitting of the charge-sheet, the petitioner has approached this Court taking a flimsy ground challenging the filing of the charge-sheet without any basis. He further submits that a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 21.01.2021, passed in WA No. 190/2020 has observed that if the investigation has already been completed normal procedure and consequence shall follow. The learned counsel for the informant has further submitted that as the Division Bench of this Court has directed to complete the normal procedure and to follow the normal consequence on completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has committed no wrong in filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner on finding sufficient materials against him. 9. The learned counsel for the informant has further submitted that in Page No.# 5/6 the POCSO Case No. 37/2021, charge has already been framed and the said case is fixed tomorrow i.e., 20.09.2025 for explaining the charges to the petitioner. However, the petitioner is leaving no stone unturned so that he may not have to appear before the Trial Court. He further submits that the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail, hence, question of taking any coercive action against him does not arises unless he violates the condition of bail. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that on the similar line like that of the learned counsel for the informant and has prayed for dismissing the instant interlocutory application. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have perused the materials available on record. 12. It appears that the charge-sheet was laid in All Women P.S. Case No. 5/2020 in the year 2021 (charge-sheet No. 44/2021, dated 31.03.2021). However, the petitioner has taken the plea of violation of the order of no coercive action in filing of the charge-sheet without leave of the Court for the first time after four years. Though, in the case of “Satish Kumar Ravi vs. The State of Jharkhand” (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the content of paragraph No. 3 of the letter dated 15th April, 2011 of the Additional Director General of Police, Jharkhand to All Police Officers of the State of Jharkhand wherein it was stated that even if Court passes an order that no coercive action shall be taken against the particular accused, there is no prohibition on filing charge-sheet against the said accused, to be illegal. However, in the instant case, the Division Bench of this Court has by its order dated 21.01.2021 passed in WA No. 190/2020 has given a go head to the Investigating Officer to follow the normal procedural consequences on completion of the investigation. Thus, Page No.# 6/6 when the Division Bench of this Court has approved taking of consequential steps on completion of the investigation, the fact of filing of charge-sheet in this case cannot be regarded as an act done in violation of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of “Satish Kumar Ravi vs. The State of Jharkhand” (supra). 13. For the reasons discussed in foregoing paragraph, this interlocutory application lacks merit and accordingly same is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant