Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010263562025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1511/2025 SHRI RAHUL KUMAR SHAH AND ANR SON OF SHRI. RATAN KUMAR SHAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -BONDA, GUWAHATI POST OFFICE - BONDA POLICE STATION - NOONMATI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781026 2: SMTI SHAKUNTALA SHAH WIFE OF SHRI. RATAN KUMAR SHAH RESIDENT OF THIRD FLOOR HOUSE NO. 33 MLB ROAD SILPUKHURI GUWAHATI POLICE STATION-CHANDMARI DISTRICT-KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN-78100 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. 2:ANU KUMARI SINGH WIFE OF RAHUL SHAH RESIDENT OF 407A2 SURYAVATIKA DHIRENPARA POST OFFICE - FATASIL AMBARI POLICE STATION - FATASIL AMBARI DISTRICT- KAMRUP M ASSAM GUWAHATI PIN-78102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T DEURI, MS. L WANGSA,MS A DAS,U Page No.# 2/3 BHARADWAJ,MRS. R S DEURI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. MEHUL SHAH (R-2),MR. S C BISWAS (R-2),P SHARMA (R-2),MR. P S BISWAS (R-2),MS. R DEVI (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 15.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P.S. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Trial Court issued notice in the case filed under the Domestic Violence Act without taking into consideration the report of the Protection Officer or the Service Provider. It was submitted by Mr. T. Deuri that, in view of this omission, the impugned order requires the interference of this Court. He relied upon the judgment and order dated 29.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No. 549/2021, wherein, under similar circumstances, the impugned order issuing notice was interfered with, and the matter was remanded to the learned Trial Court to consider the report of the Protection Officer and/or the Service Provider before deciding whether notices should be issued. 3. In the present case, Mr. Biswas, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that a report of the Protection Officer is, in fact, available on record in the Trial Court. However, he admits that the impugned order does not reflect that the said report was taken into consideration before issuing the notice. 4. In the facts and circumstances, as fairly admitted by the learned counsel for Page No.# 3/3 both parties, the order dated 04.07.2024 and all consequential orders are hereby interfered with, and the matter is remanded to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M). The Trial Court shall take into account the report of the Protection Officer, stated to be on record, and, if no such report is available, shall call for a fresh report from the Protection Officer. Thereafter, the Trial Court shall decide the necessity of issuing notices to the petitioner herein. 5. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant