Quashed

Indusind Bank Ltd. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC12 Oct 2025Crl.Pet./1236/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Magistrate’s order dismissing an NI case for non-prosecution, holding that the Magistrate failed to provide the mandatory 30-day notice under Section 279 BNSS and disregarded the petitioner's application for dispensing with personal appearance. The case was restored for hearing.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order of dismissal and restored N.I. Case No. 4781/2023 for hearing.

Indusind Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010200072025

2025:GAU-AS:13665

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Pet./1236/2025

¶6

INDUSIND BANK LTD.

¶7

REPRESENTED BY SRI RAJIB SHARMA, S/O- LATE DWIJEN SHARMA, WORKING AS LEGAL EXECUTIVE IN INDUSIND BANK, HAVING ITS REGIONAL BRANCH OF NORTH EAST SITUATED AT ABOVE SXG BRANCH, 2ND FLOOR, BATA SHOWROOM, OPPOSITE- HUB BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI-781005, DIST. KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM

¶10

2:AFAZUDDIN AHMED S/O- LATE KAJEM ALI R/O- VILL.- NAJAN P.O. KUTHURI P.S. JAKHALABANDHA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782136

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PAUL, MS. A LAHKAR

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶15

ORDER

¶16

13.10.2025

¶17

Heard Mr. A. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶18

By this application, the petitioner has sought for exercise of inherent power under Section 528, BNSS for quashing of the impugned order dated 05.02.2025 passed in N.I. Case No. 4781/2023 issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Kamrup (M) Guwahati.

¶19

By the impugned order dated 05.02.2025, the learned Court had dismissed the N.I. Case No. 4781/2023 for non-prosecution by taking recourse to Section 279 of the BNSS, 2023.

¶20

Mr. A. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on 05.02.2025, an application was filed by the petitioner showing cause of nonappearance in as much as it was stated in the said application that the representative of the complainant company was not in the station to appear before the Hon’ble Court and as such, a prayer was made to dispense with the personal appearance of the complainant for the said day but however, he submits that the Court without taking into consideration the said application and on grounds that the complainant has remained absent with steps on various

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

dates had dismissed the said N.I. Case for non-prosecution of the same. He also submitted the order sheet of the instant case and had placed the fact that the complainant has been absent without steps only on two (2) occasions and that on many occasions, the learned Magistrate was also on leave. He also placed that on 01.04.2024, sufficient cause were shown for non-appearance of the complainant in as much as there was change in the authorized representative and as such, he submits that the finding of the learned Court that the complainant had remained absent with steps on various dates and that it transpired that the complainant was not interested to proceed with the case was incorrect in the facts of the said case. He as such, submits that the case may be restored and the learned Court may hear the case i.e., N.I. Case No. 4781/2023.

¶23

Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the complainant has not appeared before the Court on various dates, sometimes with steps and sometimes without steps and the said action was unbecoming of the complainant which is a company rather a bank.

¶24

I have heard the counsels and have gone through the records.

¶25

Section 279 of the BNSS, 2023 shows that if the complainant does not appear on the day appointed for appearance of the accused and the Magistrate after giving 30 days time to the complainant to be present may acquit the accused unless for some reason, he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of

¶26

Page No.# 4/4

¶27

the case to some other day.

¶28

In the instant case, it is seen that the petitioner has filed an application on 05.02.2025 stating that the representative of the complainant company was out of station for some official work and a prayer was made for dispensing the personal appearance of the said person along with the further prayer that the company may be allowed to be represented by the counsel on 05.02.2025.

¶29

Further, it is also seen that the Magistrate should have given 30 days time to the complainant as per Section 279 of the BNSS, 2023. Although the findings of the learned Court that the complainant had absented himself on many occasions is correct, however, in the facts of the said case, more so due to the application and causes being shown, the order dated 05.02.2025 may be set aside for the ends of justice and the case i.e., N.I. Case No. 4781/2023 may be restored and the learned Court may hear the complainant by giving him another chance and proceed in accordance with law.

¶30

The petition is disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Indusind Bank Ltd. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indusind Bank Ltd. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Ram and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Purna Baishya Vs the State of Assam

Prabhat Pator Vs the State of Assam

Akher Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Manab Jyoti Das Vs the State of Assam

MD Eyazul Ali Vs the State of Assam