Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010017252025 2025:GAU-AS:1422 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/515/2025 AFSANA BEGUM BARBHUIYA AND ANR D/O ABDUL HADI BARBHUIYA, R/O VILL. BERENGA PART-I, P.O BERENGA- II, P.S SILCHAR SADAR, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM, 2: SHAKIR AHMED LASKAR S/O NAZIM UDDIN LASKAR R/O VILL. NEAIRGRAM PART-II P.S SILCHAR SADAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6. 2:THE OFFICER-IN- CHARGE SILCHAR SADAR POLICE STATION P.O AND P.S SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S ROY, MR. M H LASKAR,M. HOSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 12.02.2025 Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Goswami, learned State Counsel for both the respondents. 2. The case projected by the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners, being majors, after leaving their respective homes on 18.01.2025, have entered into marital relationship as per Islamic rites and rituals on 19.01.2025. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition stating that the family members of the petitioner no. 1 have openly threatened that both the petitioners would be harmed if they are found and as such, the petitioners have the apprehension that the family members of the petitioner no. 1 might lodge a false case of kidnapping / abduction against the petitioner no. 2 in the jurisdictional Police Station. 3. On the previous date of listing of this writ petition, that is, on 05.02.2025, the learned State Counsel was asked to obtain instruction from the respondent no. 2 as to whether any First Information Report [FIR] has been lodged against the petitioners or any one of them and, if so, the details of such FIR; and whether any case has been registered on the basis of such FIR. 4. Today, Mr. Goswami, learned State Counsel has submitted, on the basis of instructions received from the office of Superintendent of Police, Cachar, Silchar, that no First Information Report has been lodged against the petitioners or any one of them; and no crime case has been registered; as on date. 5. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that despite non- institution of any FIR, the petitioners still have apprehensions and threat perception. 6. If the petitioners still have apprehension and threat perception, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the appropriate authority stating such apprehensions and threat perception seeking protection. Page No.# 3/3 7. As no cause of action is found to be subsisting at this stage, the writ petition stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant