Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010236412025 2026:GAU-AS:11568 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./446/2025 SORAP ALI S/O-TOFILUDDIN SHEIKH R/O - SALBARI,P.O. - SILBARI, P.S. AND DIST. - KOKRAJHAR, BTR, ASSAM, PIN- 783348 VERSUS AMAL NARZARY AND ANR S/O - UPEN NARZARY R/O - KOKRAJHAR TOWN, WARD NO. 5, P.O. P.S. KOKRAJHAR, DIST. - KOKRAJHAR, BTR, ASSAM 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP. ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD, MR S ISLAM,MR S H MAHMUD,MRS. M SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, U BHARADWAJ (R1),MS. L WANGSA (R1),MS A DAS (R1),MRS. R S DEURI (R1),MR. T DEURI (R1) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 14.08.2026 Heard Mr. M U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.2. 2. The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), read with Section 528 thereof, assailing the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, in Criminal Revision No. 42/2024, whereby it upheld the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar, in C.R. (NI) Case No. 23/2024. By the said order dated 26.09.2024, the learned Trial Court refused to stay further proceedings in the said case. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent No. 1 filed a case, being C.R. (NI) Case No. 23/2024, against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner herein, in good faith, had handed over a signed blank cheque as security for his engagement as a caretaker of a brick factory to the respondent No. 1, bearing cheque No. 539611 of Canara Bank, Kokrajhar Branch. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid case and, after receiving summons from the Court, the petitioner appeared and filed a petition praying for sending the cheque to FSL, Guwahati, for verification of the writing on the cheque. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioner vide order dated 26.09.2024. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 26.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Court, Kokrajhar, on the ground Page No.# 3/4 that the learned Trial Court rejected the petition of the petitioner without applying judicial mind and without perusal of the facts of the case. 4. It was contended that the writing on the cheque, except for the signature, is totally different and as per the agreement dated 17.08.2022, the cheque is totally doubtful in nature. After hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 02.09.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar. 5. Mr. Mohmud, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has also filed a criminal complaint, being Case No. 49/2024, which is pending before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar, alleging that the respondent No. 2 had, in fact, forcibly obtained the petitioner's signature on a blank cheque. Certain other allegations have also been made in the said complaint, which is pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the said complaint also relates to the same facts arising out of the blank cheque, Complaint Case No. 49/2022 should also be heard together. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and I have also gone through the materials available on record. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any substance or merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, rejected the revision petition primarily on the ground that the prayer made by the petitioner before the learned CJM was Page No.# 4/4 not found to be sustainable. However, in the instant revision petition, no such argument has been advanced, although the said order has been impugned before this Court. There are certain factual aspects raised by the petitioner are matters which cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in the present revision petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant