Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010020362025 2026:GAU-AS:9166 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./116/2025 SUSHIL SINGH AND 2 ORS S/O SRI LAMOHAR SINGH, R/O VILL- MAILOO BIHARI BASTI, P.S. KHERONI,DIST. WEST KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM 2: SRI LALMOHAR SINGH S/O LATE SHIVDAS SING R/O VILL-MAILOO BIHARI BASTI P.S.KHERONI DIST. WEST BENGAL KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM 3: SMT. MUNMI DEVI W/O SRI HARENDAR SINGH R/O VILL-MAILOO BIHARI BASTI P.S.KHERONI DIST.WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI. DIVYA SINGH D/O SRI RAM SAGAR SINGH R/O VILL-KHERONI KACHARI GAON Page No.# 2/6 P.O. KHERONI PIN-782448 P.S. KHERONI DIST. WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R BORA, MS R MEDHI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR K L GUPTA (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 24.06.2026 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. R. Bora for the petitioners (name withheld) who have filed this application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the impugned order dated 18.01.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., West Karbi Anglong at Hamren in connection with PRC Case No. 109/2024 arising out of impugned charge-sheet No. 46/2024 dated 30.11.2024 and Kheroni P.S. Case No. 56/2024 under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Cognizance was taken vide the impugned order dated 18.01.2025 under Section 84 of the BNS read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (DPA for short). 2. The petitioners have prayed to set aside and quash the order of cognizance dated 18.01.2025 and all the consequential actions arising from the Kheroni P.S. Page No.# 3/6 Case No. 56/2024. 3. Heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State and learned counsel Mr. K. L. Gupta for the respondent No. 2. 4. The respondent No. 2 has brought up a case under the aforementioned sections of law against her husband and her in-laws. It is alleged through the FIR that the petitioners being husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively have subjected the respondent No. 2 to cruelty to meet their illegal demand of dowry at the time of marriage. 5. It is alleged that there was a demand of Rs. 2,70,000/- which was already deposited and thereafter another amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- was deposited to meet the illegal demand of dowry by the petitioners. A total amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid. Rs. 2,70,000/- was deposited by the victim/respondent No. 2’s father into the account of father-in-law and husband of the victim and Rs. 1.30,000/- was paid in cash. Even after paying an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-, the victim/respondent No. 2 was subjected to cruelty and further demand was made for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The victim was mentally and physically harassed by the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a false case has been brought up by the victim against the petitioners. The victim/respondent No. 2 Page No.# 4/6 had deserted the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 was impelled to file a petition for the restitution of conjugal rights. During the proceeding of the case for the restitution of conjugal rights, the victim stated that she is willing to restart her conjugal life with the petitioner No. 1 only under the condition that the petitioner No. 1 stays separately with her in a rented house. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is an L.P. school teacher and is unable to afford a rented house with a salary of Rs. 30,000 per month. As these allegations are false, the FIR as well as the entire proceeding of the PRC Case No. 109/2024 is liable to be set aside and quashed. 7. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 has been paying Rs. 5,000/- as monthly maintenance for his minor daughter who is with her mother at present. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has vehemently denied this submission on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that no such maintenance is being paid for the petitioner No. 1's daughter. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also raised objection against the prayer to quash the entire proceeding as there are incriminating materials that an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- has been paid to meet the illegal demand of dowry by the petitioners. It is also submitted that the same issues can be raised at the Page No.# 5/6 time of framing of charge, and at the threshold, the case cannot be stifled. 10. I have considered the submissions on behalf of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that it is not possible to conclusively decide the case at this initial stage. The same issues can be raised at the stage of framing of charges. 11. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the period of limitation of 60 days from the receipt of copies has expired and the petitioner is not left with the provision to pray for discharge at this stage. 12. After considering the submissions at the Bar, it appears that the same issues can be raised at the stage of framing of charges. As the petitioner was before this Court immediately after the order of cognizance, the petitioner could not raise the issue of discharge within the period of 60 days. 13. Thereby, the petitioners are accorded an opportunity to file an application for discharge by waiving the period of limitation of 60 days. This case is therefore remanded back to the Trial Court and the petitioner may pray for discharge through an application immediately on the next date fixed by the Court. 14. It is also made clear that the observations made in this case will not affect the merits of this case. 15. In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of. Page No.# 6/6 JUDGE Comparing Assistant