Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010003762024 2026:GAU-AS:8913 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/158/2024 BIJOY BISWAS S/O SRI BALORAM BISWAS, R/O ADARSHA COLONY, P.O.-MALIGAON, P.S.- JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI-781011, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7 3:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KAMRUP (M) PANBAZAR GUWAHATI-1 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (EAST) GANESHGURI GUWAHATI-6 5:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE JALUKBARI POLICE STATION VILLAGE AND P.S.-JALUKBARI GUWAHATI PIN-781013 6:DR. PRANJAL SARMA Page No.# 2/4 S/O PRANAHARI SARMA R/O HOUSING COLONY P.O.-CHANDMARI P.S.-CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. C. Biswas, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Gogoi, Addl. Sr. GA BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 19.06.2026 Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. 2. The Petitioner herein has approached this Court being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5 for carrying out necessary investigation and to take effective measures for recovery of the vehicle bearing registration No.AS- 01-PC-2565 (Original), MN-03-A-7089 (Changed) and to give custody to the Petitioner. 3. This Court has duly taken note of the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3 and from the said affidavit, it is seen that the Respondent Authorities have taken due steps for the purpose of Page No.# 3/4 recovery of the vehicle. It is a settled principle of law as was held by the Privy Council long back in the case of Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, reported in AIR 1945 PC 18 which had been subsequently followed by the Supreme Court in the case of S. N. Sharma vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari, reported in 1971 SCC 653 wherein the Supreme Court categorically held that the power to investigate a cognizable offence is not to be interfered with by the judiciary. It is also well settled that the power to investigate is a specific power and jurisdiction conferred upon the Police Authorities and unless and until an investigation is carried out by the Police Officer malafide, the High Court should not issue a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. In the instant case, it is taken note of that the Police Authorities have duly carried out the investigation and taken due steps for the purpose of recovery of the vehicle. However, they have not been able to do so. 5. Considering the above, as this Court does not see any willful and deliberate attempt on the part of the Respondent Authorities to derail the investigation, interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution does not arise. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of thereby directing the Respondent Authorities to carry out the Page No.# 4/4 investigation as early as possible, and if it is not possible to recover the vehicle, steps be taken in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant