Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010171252026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1132/2026 HARIPRIYA HAZARIKA D/O GHANASHYAM HAZARIKA, R/O JIBON TAMULI PATH TINIALI, P.S. GOLAGHAT, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM 785621 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM. 2:GIRISH KONCH SUB INSPECTOR P GOLAGHAT POLICE STATION GOLAGHAT 78562 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, SR. ADV., DEVABRATA SAIKIA,MR D GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 17.09.2026 Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/5 2. By this application under Section 528 of BNSS 2023, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR being registered as Golaghat P.S. Case No. 174 of 2026 under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) of BNSS 2023, read with Section, 12(b) of Passport Act 1967. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the Charge-sheet, submitted pursuant to the said FIR as well as the PRC case, being PRC Case No. 278 of 2026. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 29-07-2026, by which cognizance of offence was taken against the petitioner. Petitioner has prayed for quashing only qua her. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, on 02-08-2024, an FIR was lodged by the police personnel of Golaghat Police Station, stating inter alia, that during verification of the passport application, submitted by her husband, namely Dayadish Schendra Nand, who is a citizen of New Zealand, having passport valid up to 31-01-2028 and who is at that juncture, residing at Golaghat, on a e- Tourist Visa, it was found that the address mentioned in the application of the applicant does not match with his original address. It was further alleged that the applicant is not a citizen of India and that, he had obtained Aadhaar card, PAN card and had also opened a bank account at SBI Golaghat by illegal means. 4. It was also alleged that, discrepancies are also seen in other documents with regard to the applicant. The informant also stated that, the applicant was born in Bihar and he was adopted by his parents from Fiji, but the applicant could not produce any relevant documents from Bihar. The police on receipt of the Ejahar have registered the case as Golaghat P.S. Case No. 174/2024, under section Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) of BNSS 2023, read with Section, 12(b) of Passport Act 1967as stated above. Page No.# 3/5 5. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer, thereafter, filed a charge-sheet on 26-06-2026, arraying the applicant, namely Dayadish Schendra Nand along with his wife, i.e., the petitioner, namely Smt. Haripriya Hazarika as well as one more accused person, namely Sri Rintumoni Gohain, as accused persons. The Investigating Officer thereafter, had placed the charge- sheet before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat, and the said case was transmitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Golaghat, to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Golaghat and by order dated 29-07-2026, the said court had taken cognizance of offence under the aforesaid sections against the petitioner along with her husband and the other accused person. 6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the FIR would show that there is no allegation against the petitioner, i.e. the wife of the applicant. He submits that the only allegation that can be discerned from the said FIR is that the address of the parents of the wife of the applicant was used while applying for the passport as well as while obtaining other cards by the husband of the petitioner. Apart from the same, there is no allegation against the petitioner as stated by the learned senior counsel. He further submits that the petitioner stays in Australia on the strength of the visa issued by the country of Australia and that she applied for citizenship of the country of Australia but when she tried to get the certificate from the police station of Golaghat, about no criminal antecedents with regard to her, she was apprised of the charge-sheet that was laid on 26.06.2026. He as such prays for quashing of the charge-sheet as well as the PRC case instituted against her along with the cognizance order qua, the petitioner. 7. Mr. B. Sarma, learned APP, however submits that the applicant, i.e. the Page No.# 4/5 husband of the petitioner had used the address of the parents of the petitioner while obtaining the documents and while applying for passport in India. He submits that, the applicant is a citizen of the country of New Zealand and that, he had again submitted an application for passport in the country of India, which is per-se illegal and that, the petitioner is involved in the said offence. 8. The learned APP has relied on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh”, in Criminal Appeal No. 3831/2025, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had given the guidelines with regard to the quashing of the FIR or the charge- sheet. 9. I have heard the learned counsels and have gone through the records. A simple reading of the FIR makes it crystal clear that the allegations are against the husband of the petitioner, who had applied for passport, despite he being the citizen of New Zealand having the passport of the said country, which is valid till 31.01.2028. It is written in the FIR that, the applicant was married to the petitioner, who hails from the particular address at Golaghat town, which the applicant had used while obtaining various cards in the country and also has given the same address in his application for passport. In the said FIR, it was stipulated that address mentioned in the application does not match with his original address, which is in the country of New Zealand. 10. Further the allegations are made that, there are discrepancies in other documents as well. However, no allegation is made against the petitioner, barring the address of her parents that has been used by the applicant. It is thereafter seen that the police on completion of the investigation had submitted a charge-sheet and in the said charge sheet, the petitioner is arrayed as an Page No.# 5/5 accused person without however, stipulating any contents or any allegations, much less proved by some materials. 10. It is also seen that in the cognizance order dated 29.07.2026, the learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat had simply taken cognizance against the petitioner and her husband and the other accused person without any reasoning. 11. In view of what has been stated above, more so, in view of the fact that, no allegation is made against the petitioner, attracting any offence under the BNS, 2023, much less Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) of BNSS 2023, as well as Section, 12(b) of Passport Act 1967, this Court deems it fit to quash the charge-sheet as well as the PRC case, being PRC Case No. 278 of 2026 as well as the order dated 29.07.2026, taking cognizance of the offence, against the petitioner only. As such, the FIR being Golaghat P.S. Case No. 174 of 2024, dated 02.08.2024 under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) of BNSS 2023, read with Section, 12(b) of Passport Act 1967, along with Charge-sheet dated 26.06.2026 together with PRC case & order dated 29.07.2026, qua the petitioner stands quashed. 12. The petition stands, allowed & disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant