Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010262392025 2026:GAU-AS:6965 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1498/2025 PRATILIPI DUTTA D/O- PRABHAT DUTTA, R/O- HOUSE NO. 82, AMGURI HILOIDARI GAON, P.O AND P.S AMGURI, DISTRICT SIBSAGAR, PIN 785680. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:NANDAN KAUSHIK HANDIQUE S/O- SRI BIRENDRA KUMAR HANDIQUE R/O- ANGERA KONWAR GAON P.O- DHOLBAGAN DISTRICT CHARAIDEO ASSAM PIN-78568 Advocate for the Petitioner : G UDDIN, MR A H SARKAR,MR P AGARWAL,P ADHIKARI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MISS. J GOGOI(R-2),MR B P BORAH(R-2),MR P J DUTTA (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 20.06.2025 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. G. Uddin for the petitioner Pratilipi Dutta who Page No.# 2/4 has filed this application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for quashing of C.R. Case No.37/2025 under Sections 316/318/351/352/356 (1) of the BNS pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Charaideo. 2. Mr. K.K.Parashar, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor is present for the respondent State and Mr. P.J.Dutta, learned counsel is present for the respondent No.2 Nandan Kaushik Hanqique. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as soon as the case was received on transfer on 22.10.2025 for disposal, the learned trial court passed the following order which is extracted herein below verbatim: “Case Record received as CR Case on transfer for disposal. Perused the CR. Issue notice to the accused person. Complainant shall take step. Fixing 18/11/2025 for Appearance.” 4. I have considered the submissions at the Bar. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Section 225 (1) of the BNSS, 2023 has not been complied. Section 225(1) of the BNSS reads as follows: “(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 212, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either Page No.# 3/4 inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,- (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 223.” 6. It is submitted that no inquiry was made by the learned Magistrate on postponement of process as accused resides in the district of Sivasagar whereas the complainant resides in the district of Charaideo. It is also submitted that Section 223 (1) of the BNSS has also not been complied with as the complainant was not examined on oath. The respondents’ side have not disputed that the order dated 22.10.2025 is liable to be set aside. 7. As the accused resides beyond the jurisdiction of the district of Charaideo being a resident of Sivasagar, an inquiry on postponement of process ought to have been made by the learned Magistrate. 8. In view of the foregoing discussions, it is held that indeed Section 225(1) of the BNSS has not been complied with and the order dated 22.10.2025 is hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Court of JMFC, Charaideo to proceed with the case in accordance with law. 9. In terms of the above observations, the criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 4/4 Comparing Assistant