Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010024032025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./121/2025 SIDDHARTHA SARMAH S/O KIRAN CH. SARMAH R/O WARD NO. 10, BIHPURIA, P.O. ANDP.S. BIHPURIA, DIST.LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784161 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:PALKI SARMAH BORDOLOI W/O SIDDHARTHA SARMAH D/O PRABIN KUMAR SARMAH R/O HINDUGAON NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-78703 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. G BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 11.02.2025 1) Heard Ms. G. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2) This application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, Siddhartha Sarmah, impugning the order dated 11.06.2023 passed by the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Misc Case (D.V.) No. 16/2023, whereby distress warrant was issued against the present petitioner, Siddhartha Sarmah. 3) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in execution of the distress warrant issued by the trial court, by the impugned order dated 11.06.2023, the one blue coloured super bus named “Kiran” bearing Registration No. AS-07-BC-9897 was seized. 4) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the said night super bus was purchased by the petitioner after hypothecating the same to Punjab National Bank, the bus could not have been attached in execution of the distress warrant, as the bank is also to be treated as a co-owner till the loan availed by the petitioner for purchasing the said bus is repaid. 5) She cites that there are embargo provided in Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, regarding such alienation and also by the provisions of SARFAESI Act. 6) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides. Page No.# 3/3 7) It appears that by the impugned order, only distress warrant was issued by the trial court under Section 10 on failure of the petitioner to comply with the order of paying interim maintenance to the respondent. Nothing was specified as to what property is to be attached. 8) It also appears that the petitioner has not approached the trial court with the objections, which he has raised before this Court. 9) It also appears that before approaching this Court, there is an appellate forum provided in the statute before the learned Appellate Forum provided in the statute under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which is also not availed by the petitioner before approaching this Court. 10) This Court is therefore, of considered opinion that this is not a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS may be invoked at this stage. 11) In view of above, this petition is disposed of with an observation that the petitioner may approach the trial court with his grievance by filing an appropriate application before the said Court, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant