Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010155302026 2026:GAU-AS:10473 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3925/2026 Kumari Kiran Singh House No. 9, Amrit Nagar, Basistha Natun Bazar, Beltola, Guwahati-29, District Kamrup Metro, Assam 2: Pankaj Singh House No. 9 Amrit Nagar Basistha Natun Bazar Beltola Guwahati-29 District Kamrup Metro Assam 3: Shiv Dayal Singh House No. 9 Amrit Nagar Basistha Natun Bazar Beltola Guwahati-29 District Kamrup Metro Assam 4: Malti Singh House No. 9 Amrit Nagar Basistha Natun Bazar Beltola Guwahati-29 District Kamrup Metro Assam VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, Dispur, Guwahati 6 2:THE DGP B.K. Kakati Road Ulubari Guwahati 7 3:THE POLICE COMMISSIONER City Guwahati Khanapara Guwahati 781022 Page No.# 2/5 4:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE BASISTHA POLICE STATION Basistha Guwahati 781029 5:SHRI NABAJYOTI KALITA Basistha Police Station Basistha Guwahati-781029 6:ANJU SINGH Near Rowta Railway Station P.O. P.S. Rowta District Udalguri Assam 784508 7:RISHITA SINGH Near Rowta Railway Station P.O. P.S. Rowta District Udalguri Assam 78450 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. V RAI, MR.T YADAV,MR. S P ROY,JYOTISH DAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 29.07.2026 Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1 – 4. 2. The petitioner no. 3 is a senior citizen and octogenarian, aged about 88 years. The petitioner no. 4 is the wife of the petitioner no. 3 is the senior citizen of 65 years of age. The petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 are the daughter and son of the petitioner no. 3 and the petitioner no. 4. The respondent no. 6 is the wife and the respondent no. 7 is the daughter of Late Pawan Kumar Singh another son of the petitioner no. 3 and the petitioner no. 4. 3. The petitioners are residents of a locality within the territorial jurisdiction of Basistha Page No.# 3/5 Police Station, Guwahati. The petitioner no. 3 and the petitioner no. 4’s son, Pawan Kumar Singh expired on 03.10.2025. The petitioners have canvassed that after the death of Pawan Kumar Singh, the respondent no. 6 and the respondent no. 7 have been continuously harassing the petitioners with the sole intention of extracting money and to claim a share in the jointly owned family property of the petitioners. 4. The petitioners have approached this Court stating inter alia that there have been repeated visits of police personnel from Basistha Police Station to the residence of the petitioners without furnishing any information as to why the visits are being made. When the petitioners asked for information regarding any complaint and/or First Information Report [FIR] registered against any of the petitioners, the police personnel visiting the residence of the petitioners did not disclose any such registration of complaint/FIR against the petitioners. The petitioners have, thus, contended that their right to personal liberty have been infringed on such unwanted visits made by the police personnel from Basistha Police Station. The petitioners have stated that despite making enquiry, the petitioners have not been informed whether any complaint/FIR has been registered in Basistha Police Station till date. The petitioners are in belief that such visits of the police personnel without compliance of the procedure laid down in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 are made at the behest of the respondent no. 6 and the respondent no. 7. With such projections, the writ petition has been filed. 5. When the writ petition was moved on 27.07.2026, Mr. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate was asked to obtain instructions whether any complaint/FIR has been received/registered against the petitioners and, also about the reason for repeated visits of police personnel from Basistha Police Station to the residence of the petitioners. 6. Today, Mr. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate has placed a Letter dated 28.07.2026 received by him from the respondent no. 4. 7. As per the instructions contained in the said Letter, it is the respondent no. 6 who had submitted an FIR on 07.07.2026 against the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 Page No.# 4/5 complaining inter alia that after the death of Pawan Kumar Singh, the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 together with the petitioner no. 4 started torturing the respondent no. 6 and the respondent no. 7 both physically and mentally, and by entering into a conspiracy, drove them out from their matrimonial home. As a result, they had to leave matrimonial home and seek shelter in the parental house of the respondent no. 6, after locking their room at the matrimonial home. In the complaint, it is mentioned that when the respondent no. 6 and the respondent no. 7 visited the matrimonial home on 05.07.2026 they found that the almirah which was inside the locked room in the matrimonial home, was broken and valuable items including laptop and CDs of the videos of marriage, kept inside the almirah, were missing. 8. On receipt of the said FIR, the contents of the same were recorded in the General Diary Entry and the matter was entrusted the respondent no. 5 to cause an investigation into the allegations and to submit a report. The respondent no. 5 had thereafter, visited the residence of the petitioners and apprised the petitioner no. 3 and the petitioner no. 4 that there was an FIR received against the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2. The petitioner no. 3 and the petitioner no. 4 were also apprised that the allegations were leveled against the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 which appeared to be a family dispute among the members of the family and therefore, a preliminary enquiry was being carried out. 9. In the Letter dated 28.07.2026, it is further mentioned that the respondent no. 5 had visited the residence of the petitioners only on 09.07.2026 and 25.07.2026 solely for the purpose of ascertaining the facts mentioned in the FIR and not for any other reason. Therefore, the allegation of harassing senior citizens cannot be leveled. 10. Sub-section [3] of Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 contains a mandate to the effect that the Police Officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under sub-section [1], has to issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice. As per sub- section [4] of Section 35 of the BNSS, where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be Page No.# 5/5 the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice. 11. Thus, Section 35[3] of the BNSS casts an obligation on the part of the Police Officer to issue notice against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice. 12. As no notice under Section 35[3] of the BNSS is stated to have been issued to any of the petitioners herein on receipt of the above information regarding the role of the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 on the basis of the allegations made in the an FIR which has been registered only as a General Diary Entry in Basistha Police Station, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 5 to comply with the prescription contained in Section 35[3] of the BNSS if the appearances of any of the petitioners is found necessary in connection with the allegations made in the FIR, if registered upon finding out commission of any cognizable offence. It is further observed that in the event such notice under Section 35[3] is issued to any of the petitioners herein, such petitioner is to observe the mandate contained in Section 35[4] of the BNSS. 13. This order disposes of the writ petitions. No cost. 14. The instructions place by Mr. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate in the form of Letter dated 28.07.2026 of the respondent no. 4, are kept with the case record. JUDGE Comparing Assistant