Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010260272019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1249/2019 DADHIRAJ SHARMAH AND 2 ORS. S/O DURGA PRASAD SHARMAH, R/O AMSINGH JORABAT, P.S. SATGAON, DIST KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2: CHANDAN NAYAK S/O SARBESWAR NAYAK PERMANENT R/O SEC/9 RAURKELA 5 P.S SEC/P RAURKELA 5 DISTRICT-SUNDAGARH ORISSA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PA-05 PEERBABA COLONY ARMY CAMP SATGAON P.S. SATGAON KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM 3: HARI CHADRO NARJARI @ HARI CHANDRA NARZARY @ HARICHARAN NARZARY S/O HEM CH. NARJARI R/O SATGAON KALYANKUCHI P.S. SATGAON DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY PP, ASSAM 2:KABITA TALUKDAR W/O SRI RANJIT TALUKDAR Page No.# 2/4 R/O BHATHALA CHOWK KADAMTALA P.S DHAMDHAMA DIST. BAKSA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K K BHATTACHARYYA, MR. D BORA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. D GHOSH,MS N DEKA,MR SAURADEEP DEY,MR I CHAKMA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 17-09-2025 Heard Mr. D. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State/ respondent No. 1 as well as Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner had instituted the present criminal appeal assailing the order dated 22-08-2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati to the extent it had framed charges against the petitioner, herein, under Section 376(3) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. The petitioner in the present proceeding had assailed the said framing of charge against him on the ground that the investigation against the other person are not complete and only a part charge-sheet was filed. 4. Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that without filing of Page No.# 3/4 the supplementary charge-sheet, completing the investigation in the matter against the other accused and also framing of the charge against the petitioner, herein, was not permissible. Accordingly, he has prayed for interference with the order dated 22- 08-2019 to the extent it has the affect of framing of the charge in the matter. 5. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has placed on record certified copy of the trial court record including the supplementary charge-sheet filed on 18-11-2019. In view of the filing of the supplementary charge-sheet, the investigation in the matter can be held to be come to a conclusion and the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present proceeding has been redressed. The supplementary charge-sheet having been filed in the matter against the other accused, there would be no bar in taking the case to its logical conclusion. 6. Accordingly, without interfering with the order dated 22-08-2019, framing the charge against the petitioner, herein, restriction placed on the trial court from proceeding in the matter after framing of charges against the petitioner, herein, vide order dated 30-10-2019 is vacated. The learned trial court to now proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law also by reckoning the charge so framed against the petitioner, herein, vide order dated 22-08-2019. With the above observations and directions, the present criminal petition stands closed. The petitioner to appear before the trial court, on the next date of listing, which Page No.# 4/4 has been stated in the Bar to be so fixed on 16-10-2025, to receive further order from the learned trial court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant