Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010271882025 2026:GAU-AS:8810 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1553/2025 HAMIDUR ISLAM AND ANR SON OF UNOS ALI R/O VILL- KAYETHPARA PART-I, P.O. KAYETHPARA P.S. ABHAYAPURI DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM PIN-783384 (PERMANENT ADDRESS) 2: UNOS ALI S/O LT. OMAR ALI R/O VILL- KAYETHPARA PART-I P.O. KAYETHPARA P.S. ABHAYAPURI DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-783384 (PERMANENT ADDRESS) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:ASMINA B EGUM D/O ABDUL JOLIL SARKAR W/O HAMIDUR RAHMAN RESIDENT OF KAYETHPARA PART-I P.S. ABHAYAPURI DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-783384 Page No.# 2/5 PHONE -813484103 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G CHAMUAH, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. R KHA (R-2),MS. P AHMED (R-2),MR. N ISLAM (R-2),MR. M I HUSSAIN (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 18.06.2026 Heard Mr. G. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. M.I. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner herein seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings bearing C.R. Case No. 164/2022 under Section 406/ 498(A) of IPC pending trial before the learned SDJ(M), North Salmara, Abhayapuri arising out of a complaint lodged by the present opposite party No. 2. The dispute in the present petition concerns two parallel proceedings instituted that the instance of the opposite party No. 2 against the present petitioner. 3. On 30.07.2022, an FIR was lodged by the opposite party No. 2 at Boitamari Police Outpost, which was registered as Boitamari P.S. Case No. 361/2022 under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. Within a week i.e., on 06.08.2022, a complaint case was lodged by the Page No.# 3/5 opposite party No. 2 against the present petitioner before the learned SDJ(M), North Salmara, Abhayapuri containing basically the same allegations as in the previous case. Subsequently, by Order dated 10.09.2024, the learned Magistrate also took cognizance under Section 498(A) of IPC against the petitioner. 5. After investigation, in connection with Boitamari P.S. Case No. 361/2022, the police submitted charge-sheet under Section 498(A) of IPC against the petitioner. Subsequently, charges have also been framed vide Order dated 10.09.2025 under Section 498(A)/34 against the petitioner and the co-accused. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two parallel proceedings on the basis of the same allegations cannot be allowed to be continued against the same person and accordingly, this criminal petition has been preferred seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated on the basis of the complaint lodged by the opposite party No. 2 before the Magistrate. 7. Section 233 of BNSS provides as follows:- “233. (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the Page No.# 4/5 police officer conducting the investigation. (2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 193 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Sanhita.” 8. A perusal of the FIR and a comparison of the same with the complaint instituted subsequently by the opposite party No. 2 would reveal that both are based substantially on the same set of facts. Under these circumstances, it appears that Section 433 of BNSS would be attracted and therefore, the Magistrate before whom the complaint case is pending is required to act as per the aforesaid provision. 9. It is submitted that both the complaint case as well as the case instituted in police report are pending before the same Court i.e., the learned SDJ(M), North Salmara, Abhayapuri. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned SDJ(M), North Salmara, Abhayapuri to proceed in accordance with Page No.# 5/5 Section 233(2) of BNSS. 11. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 12. Stay order stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant