2026:GAU-AS:10196 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3811/2026 1. YASIN ALI ALIAS IKTIAR UDDIN S/O- IKTIAR UDDIN 2: IKTIAR UDDIN S/O- LT. HASEN ALI. 3: IBRAHIM ALI S/O- IKTIAR UDDIN. 4: ALEKA BEGUM W/O- EASIN ALI. 5: RABIYA KHATUN W/O- IKTIAR UDDIN. 6: ABIDA BEGUM W/O-IKTIAR UDDIN 7: INSAN ALI S/O- IKTIAR UDDIN. 8: ENAMUL HOQUE S/O- IKTIAR UDDIN. 9: JUBIAR UDDIN S/O- IBRAHIM ALI. 10: EKRAMUL ALI S/O- IKTIAR UDDIN. 11: ILLIAS UDDIN GAHC010148452026 S/O- ABDUL AZIZ ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KUPTIMARI P/S- BHURAGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, POLITICAL AND HOME DEPARTMENT , DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 7. 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MORIGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 4:THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MORIGAON, DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM, PIN- 5:THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MORIGAON, DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 6:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE BHURAGAON POLICE STATION BHURAGAON P.S- BHURAGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 7:SRI SURUJ TERON S.I OF POLICE EARLIER OFFICER IN CHARGE OF BHURAGAON POLICE STATION C/O- SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MORIGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 8:EMRADUL ISLAM SON OF ABUL HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KUPOTIMARI P/S- BHURAGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM 9:MAFIDUL ISLAM SON OF ABUL HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KUPOTIMARI P/S- BHURAGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM 10:RAFIQUL ISLAM SON OF ABUL HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KUPOTIMARI P/S- BHURAGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM 11:ABU HANIF SON OF ABUL HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KUPOTIMARI P/S- BHURAGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM 12:SHAHIDUL ISLAM SON OF ABUL HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KUPOTIMARI P/S- BHURAGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM 13:JAMAL UDDIN S/O- LT. RAFIKUL RESIDENT AT VILLAGE-ADHALABHETI P/S- BHURAGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM. 14:KALIM UDDIN S/O- LT. ROMIJ UDDIN VILLAGE- KUPOTIMARI P/S- BHURAGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM 15:SHAHIDUL ISLAM S/O- ABDUS SALAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ADHALABHETI P/S- BHURAGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM 16:SAMSUDDIN S/O- HAZRAT ALI 17:IMRADUL ISLAM ARE S/O- LT. JAMIR UDDIN VILLAGE- ADHALABHETI P/S- BHURAGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM. 18:IKRAMUL HOQUE ARE S/O- LT. JAMIR UDDIN VILLAGE- ADHALABHETI P/S- BHURAGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM. 19:BILLAL HUSSAIN S/O- SURUJ ALI 20:ALI MODDIN. S/O-LT. RAMIJ UDDIN 21:KHALIL UDDIN. S/O-LT. RAMIJ UDDIN 22:JALIL UDDIN. S/O-LT. RAMIJ UDDIN 23:ABUL ALI S/O-LT. RAMIJ UDDIN 24:MIRAJ ALI S/O- LT. IDRASH ALI 25:DILDAR HUSSAIN S/O- SAHIDUL ISLAM 26:SIRAJUL ISLAM S/O- LT. HANIF ALI 27:ABUL BACHA S/O- NUR HUSSAIN 28:TAIYAB ALI S/O- LT. KAJIMUDDIN 29:RASIDUL ISLAM S/O- LT. HANIF ALI 30:BAHARUL ISLAM S/O- LT. NUR HUSSAIN 31:SIDDADUL ISLAM S/O- LT. HANIF ALI 32:AMIR HUSSAIN S/O- SAHIDUL ISLAM ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KUPATIMARI P/S- BHURAGAON DISTRICT- MORIGAON ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED, H G DAISY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY JUDGMENT Date :- 24.07.2026 Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1 to 7. 2. The petitioners, eleven in nos., have claimed to have belonged to the same family and are inhabitants of Village – Kupotimari which now falls under Bhuragaon Revenue Town, Mouza – Bhuragaon, District – Morigaon, Assam. It is stated that the petitioner no. 2 owns a plot of land measuring 3 Bighas 1 Katha and 1 Lessa at Village – Kupotimari. It is claimed that the family of the petitioners owns a parcel of land within the said village. When on 17.08.2025, the petitioner no. 3 was ploughing in the plot of land owned by the family by engaging tractor, a group of assailants, armed with weapons and in furtherance of their common intention, trespassed into the land of the family of the petitioners and caused serious injuries on the persons of the two members of the family and in that incident, one Ibrahim Ali had succumbed to the injuries in hospital. In connection with the said incident, a First Information Report [FIR] was lodged before Bhuragaon Police Station on 18.08.2025 naming twenty-four persons as accused including the petitioner nos. 1 – 3 & 5 to 10 and the said FIR was registered as Bhuragaon Police Station Case no. 49/2025 under Sections 61[2], 103[1], 118[2] and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [BNS], 2023. During the course of investigation of the case, four of the present petitioners surrendered before the Police Station on 17.08.2025 itself and three of the petitioners surrendered on 18.08.2025. On surrender, they were taken into custody. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that taking advantage of the said situation resulting in the absence of male members in the family of the petitioners, the persons, arraigned as respondent nos. 8 to 33 in the present petition, forcefully entered into the residences of the petitioners and assaulted the family members including female and children, apart from looting valuable articles such as gold ornaments and cash amounts. The petitioners have stated that they could not lodge any FIR about the said incident before Bhuragaon Police Station as they had to leave their residences out of fear and for taking the injured persons to hospital, who sustained injuries due to attack by the informants’ side of Bhuragaon Police Station Case no. 49/2025. The petitioners have alleged that similar incident of attacks had also happened during the subsequent period and the family members of the petitioners had made endeavour to lodge FIRs on a number of occasions before the Officer In-Charge, Bhuragaon Police Station. But, the Officer In-Charge, Bhuragaon Police Station did not register the FIRs save and except one as Bhuragaon Police Station Case no. 53/2025 under Sections 61[2]/329[3]/74/305/324[4]/296/359[2]/3[5] of the BNS on 23.09.2025 as regards an incident stated to have occurred on 07.09.2025. The petitioners have stated that in the meantime after the case was investigated, a charge-sheet was submitted on 30.10.2025. 4. The petitioners have canvassed that despite submissions of FIRs before the Officer In-Charge, Bhuragaon Police Station on 21.08.2025, 27.08.2025 & 27.02.2026, those FIRs were not registered by the Officer In-Charge, Bhuragaon Police Station. It is stated that the petitioners had submitted those FIRs either before the Superintendent of Police or before the Additional Superintendent of Police of Morigaon district and on receipt of those FIRs, the said authorities had forwarded the FIRs to the Officer In-Charge, Bhuragaon Police Station for necessary action. Yet, the Officer In-Charge, Bhuragaon Police Station did not register those FIRs. Aggrieved by non-registration of those FIRs, the petitioners had also submitted a representation before the Director General of Police, Assam on 09.03.2026. 5. Narrating as above, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking inter alia a direction to the respondent authorities to register the FIRs lodged by the petitioners on 21.08.2025 before the respondent no. 4; the FIR submitted by the petitioner no. 4 on 27.08.2025 before the respondent no. 3; and the FIR submitted by the petitioner no. 3 on 27.02.2026 before the respondent no. 7. The petitioners have also sought for a direction to provide protection to the petitioner nos. 1 to 7. Page 8 of 17 6. Mr. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents have submitted that in the event the FIRs, stated to have been filed by the petitioners, disclosing commission of any cognizable offences, have not been registered by the Officer In-Charge of the jurisdictional Police Station and also, by the Superintendent of Police or the Additional Superintendent of Police or if no action has been taken on the Representation, stated to have been submitted by the petitioner before the Director General of Police, the petitioners ought to have approached the jurisdictional Magistrate as per the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 [earlier, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973]. 7. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sakari Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, [2008] 2 SCC 409, that the Magistrate had very wide powers under Section 156[3], Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the CrPC’, or ‘the Code’, for short] to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose, he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly [though he cannot investigate himself]. It has been observed that the High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or a petition under Section 482, CrPC simply because a person has a grievance that his/her FIR had not been registered by the Police, or after being registered, proper investigation had not been done by the police. For this kind of grievance, the remedy would lie under Sections 36, CrPC and Section 154[3], CrPC before the Police Officers concerned at first, and if that is of no avail, then under Section 156[3], CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200, CrPC, and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482, CrPC. It has been observed that an alternative remedy would not be an absolute bar to prefer the writ petition but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy, the High Court should not ordinarily interfere. Page 9 of 17 8. There was an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156[3], CrPC to order registration of a criminal offence and/or to direct the Officer In-Charge of the concerned Police Station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that might be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring of the same. 9. In Sakiri Vasu [supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations :- 11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154[3] CrPC by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156[3] CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156[3] is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation. * * * * * 17. In our opinion Section 156[3] CrPC is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156[3] CrPC, though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. * * * * * 24. In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of the view that although Section 156[3] is very briefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156[3] CrPC to order registration of a criminal offence and/or to direct the officer in charge of the police station concerned to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section 156[3] CrPC, we are of the opinion that they are implied in the above provision. 25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, first under Section 154[3] and Section 36 CrPC before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the Magistrate concerned under Section 156[3]. Page 11 of 17 26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154[3] CrPC or other police officer referred to in Section 36 CrPC. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156[3] CrPC instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies? 27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly [though he cannot investigate himself]. The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 CrPC simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154[3] before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156[3] CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. 10. It is also relevant to refer to the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, [2016] 6 SCC 277, :- 2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156[3] CrPC. If such an application under Section 156[3] CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation. 3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156[3], CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation. 11. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has since been replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [‘the BNSS’, for short]. The provisions contained in Section 175, BNSS is akin to the provisions contained in Section 156, CrPC. Page 13 of 17 12. Section 173 [4] and Section 175 [3] of the BNSS, which are of relevance, are quoted hereinbelow for ready reference :- 173. Information in cognizable cases – [1] * * * * * [2] * * * * * [3] * * * * * [4] Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section [1], may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Sanhita, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence failing which such aggrieved person may make an application to the Magistrate. 175. 175. Police Officer’s power to investigate cognizable case – [1] * * * * * [2] * * * * * [3] Any Magistrate empowered under Section 210 may, after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section [4] of Section 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned. [4] * * * * * 13. In Sujal Viswas Attavar and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [2026] 5 SCR 273, the question considered was whether under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a direction could be given to the State authorities to register an FIR without the applicant first having taken recourse to the alternative remedies provided in law. In the case under reference, the FIR was registered under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [BNS], 2023 pursuant to an interim order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the jurisdictional High Court in a writ petition preferred by the complainant. Aggrieved by such registration, the accused persons approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court contending that the registration of the FIR was a direct consequence of the directions issued in writ proceedings, and was therefore, contrary to law since alternative remedies available under the statutory framework had not been exhausted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to the decisions in Sakiri Vasu [supra] and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe [supra] amongst others. 14. Finding that the complainant did not avail any of the statutory remedies provided under the BNSS and had instead directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court inter alia seeking directions for registration of the FIR, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- 7. Keeping in view the above exposition of law, we find that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to have been invoked when alternative equally efficacious statutory remedies were available. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being conducted, then the remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction in the first instance, but in seeking recourse to the statutory framework, unless of course the urgency of the circumstances warrant otherwise. Page 15 of 17 8. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 [erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] provides a structured sequential mechanism for initiating criminal prosecution. The statutory framework contemplates that information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is first placed before the officer-in-charge of the police station and an FIR is registered under Section 173[1] BNSS. In the event of refusal to register the FIR, recourse lies before the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police under Section 173[4] BNSS and, thereafter, before the Magistrate, under Section 175[3] BNSS. 9. In the present case, it is evident from the record that the complainant company …… did not avail any of the statutory remedies provided under BNSS and instead directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, inter alia, seeking directions for registration of FIR. In our considered view, such a recourse, in the first instance, is contrary to the settled principles of law. Particularly in the absence of imminent danger of violation of life or liberty of an individual. Article 226 is not a panacea for all grievances. 10. It is not the case of the complainant company that it had approached the concerned Superintendent of Police or Magistrate prior to filing the writ petition, nor has any material been placed on record to show that such remedies were unavailable or inefficacious. Entertaining a writ petition, in the said circumstances, would in effect, result in the High Court, acting as a forum of first instance thereby bypassing the statutory scheme in its entirety. This is impermissible, save and except in special circumstances as mentioned in Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, [2021] 6 SCC 771, which are conspicuously absent in the present case. 11. The High Court is not bound to entertain a writ petition merely because a case of alleged inaction or negligence is made out against a statutory authority. Ordinarily, where a statute provides a complete and efficacious remedy, the same must be exhausted before invoking constitutional jurisdiction [See : Sakiri Vasu (supra) and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (supra)]. In the present facts, the complainant company, has not exhausted the sequential statutory remedies available under BNSS. There is, therefore, no foundation to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court for the reason that efficacious and efficient alternative remedies exists. Hence, at this stage, we find the instant writ petition to be premature, and, therefore, not fit to be entertained. 15. From the pleaded case of the petitioners, it has not emerged that the petitioners had, at any point of time since 17.08.2025, approached the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate seeking registration of the FIRs. The prayer made in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondent authorities to initiate investigation against the respondent nos. 8 to 33 with the registration of the FIRs without any previous approach to the jurisdictional Magistrate to avail the statutory remedy provided under Section 173[4] r/w Section 175[3] of the BNSS. Without availing such statutory remedy provided under the BNSS, the petitioners have directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking for initiation of criminal proceedings with registration of the FIRs. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, such a recourse to writ proceeding in the first instance is contrary to the settled principles of law. As regards the other directions sought for, this Court is of the considered view that from the materials on record, the petitioners have not been able to make out a prima facie case for such other directions regarding investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI] or by a Special Task Force and for a direction to provide police protection to the petitioner nos. 1 to 7. 16. In view of the settled position of law, as outlined above, and the fact situation obtaining in the case, this Court finds the present writ petition as a premature one and therefore, it is not one to be entertained. It is accordingly observed. While not entertaining the present writ petition, it is observed that the petitioners as aggrieved persons have the liberty to avail the remedy under the BNSS by approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 173[4] r/w Section 175[3], BNSS by following due procedure and formalities as laid down in those provisions. 17. It is further observed that none of the observations made hereinabove shall be construed as observations or an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or as to whether or not the facts disclose the commission of any criminal offence. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Rupam Basumatary Date: 2026.08.03 15:21:14 +05'30'