Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010115932026 2026:GAU-AS:8448 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./837/2026 NURHUSSAIN ALI AND 3 ORS. S/O- ABDUL LATIF, 2: ABDUL LATIF S/O- ABDUL KUDDUS 3: MIJANUR RAHMAN S/O- ABDUL LATIF ALL ARE R/O- VILLAGE GARIA CHATLA PS- SARTHEBARI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781307 4: PORAN ALI S/O- RUSTAM ALI R/O- VILLAGE SAFARBORI PS- BHAWANIPUR DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781307 VERSUS MOMINA BEGUM D/O- JAMAL ALI, PERMANENT R/O- HOUSE NO.61, SATGAON, RAILWAY LINE UDAYAN VIHAR, DIST. KAMRUP M, PS- SATGAON, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781171 Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD, MR S H MAHMUD,MR S ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 12.06.2026 [1] Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, the learned counsel for the petitioners. [2] This criminal petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been preferred by the petitioner, praying for quashing of the complaint Case No. 164/2025, pending before the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati. [3] Mr. M.U. Mahmud, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant, Momina Begum, has instituted a complaint case alleging making accusation against the present petitioners under Section 316 of BNSS, 2023 and also making prayer therein several accusations against the present petitioners. He submits that the trial court has issued notice to the petitioners and fixed the next date on 18.06.2026 for hearing. He, however, fairly submits that the trial court has not yet taking cognizance of offence against the present petitioners. [4] It appears on perusal of the order dated 04.05.2026, passed in C.R. Case No. 164/2025, by the Page No.# 3/3 court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 4, Kamrup(M), at Guwahati, which is annexed as Annexure-3, along with this petition that the trial court has issued notice to the present petitioners under proviso to Section 223 of BNSS, 2023 at a pre- cognizance stage, which means that only after hearing the petitioners, the question as to whether the cognizance may be taken or not will be decided by the trial court. [5] As such, this court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to interfere with the order of the trial court. The petitioners may appear before the trial court and may agitate their case before the said court. [6] With the above observations, this criminal petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant