Disposed¶33

Chandan Deka v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC1 Dec 2025Crl.Pet./1293/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing petition under S.528 BNSS 2023; C.R. Case No. 1902/2021, ACJM Dhubri; restoration of cross-examination of PW-1; accused to be heard and not prejudiced; procrastination balanced against cooperation in 26 other NI Act cases; absence excused on medical grounds (sister-in-law's cancer, Apollo Speciality Hospital); order dated 06.05.2024 set aside; cost of Rs. 2,000/- imposed; Chandan Deka v. State of Assam & Jahangir Ali; Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund; decided 02-12-2025.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 06.05.2024 in C.R. Case No. 1902/2021 set aside; petitioner/accused permitted to cross-examine PW-1 only; Trial Court directed to conclude PW-1's examination expeditiously; petition disposed with Rs. 2,000/- cost payable to respondent No. 2. ¶33

Chandan Deka Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 06.05.2024, 21.06.2024, 26.07.2024 and 09.09.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri in C.R. Case No. 1902/2021, dispensing with the petitioner's cross-examination of PW-1, should be quashed and the petitioner permitted to cross-examine PW-1. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

On the principle that the accused is to be heard and is not to be prejudiced, and although the petitioner had procrastinated the case, the court deemed it appropriate to allow the petitioner to cross-examine only PW-1.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 06.05.2024 passed in C.R. Case No. 1902/2021 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri is set aside, and the learned Trial Court is to allow the petitioner/accused to cross-examine only PW1.

¶30

Key takeaways

The Trial Court is directed to make every endeavour to conclude the examination of PW-1 expeditiously.ratio¶32
The petition is disposed of with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid to respondent No. 2 (the complainant).ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.), Crl.Pet./1293/2024, decided 02-12-2025: Chandan Deka petitioned under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanita, 2023 to quash orders dated 06.05.2024, 21.06.2024, 26.07.2024 and 09.09.2024 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri in C.R. Case No. 1902/2021 (an NI Act complaint by Jahangir Ali), by which his cross-examination of PW-1 stood dispensed with after a single absence caused by his sister-in-law's terminal cancer. Although the court found the petitioner had procrastinated the proceedings, it weighed his regular cooperation in 26 other NI Act cases and, on the principle that the accused is to be heard and not prejudiced, set aside the order dated 06.05.2024, permitted cross-examination of PW-1 only, directed the Trial Court to conclude that examination expeditiously, and disposed of the petition with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- payable to respondent No. 2.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010221622024

2025:GAU-AS:16554

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

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Pet./1293/2024

¶6

CHANDAN DEKA S/O LATE UTTAM CHANDRA DEKA R/O HOUSE NO. 14, AMRIT NAGAR, BASISTHA, P.O. BELTOLA, P.S. BASISTHA, GUWAHATI-781029 DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶9

2:SRI JAHANGIR ALI S/O HASARUDDIN SHEIKH R/O VILL- CHARUBABHITA P.O. RANIGANJ P.S. SAPATGRAM DIST. DHUBRI ASSA

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K SARMA, MRS. M. BARUAH BHUYAN,MR S DASGUPTA

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 02-12-2025

¶16

Heard learned counsel Mr. M.K. Sarma for petitioner Sri Chandan Deka, who has filed this application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanita, 2023 with prayer for quashing the orders dated 06.05.2024, 21.06.2024, 26.07.2024 and 09.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri in C.R. Case No. 1902/2021.

¶17

Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. R.R. Kaushik for the respondent State.

¶18

This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent No. 2 i.e. the complainant, Sri Jahangir Ali.

¶19

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that 26 cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act for short) has been filed against the petitioner by Raisuiddin Ahmed and his co-conspirators including the present respondent No. 2 at Bilasipara and Dhubri. Amongst the conspirators, some of them filed complaint case at Bilasipara and in the said proceeding the petitioner has regularly cooperated with the trial.

¶20

In the instant case, only on one date when the petitioner was absent, the impugned order was passed.

¶21

It is submitted that the cross-examination of PW-1 has been dispensed with. It is submitted that the petitioner shall be highly prejudiced if he is not

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

allowed to cross-examine the PW-1 as false allegation has been leveled against him and he will suffer immensely and this will result in irreparable loss.

¶24

It is further submitted that his sister-in-law was suffering from cancer and it is the reason why he was not present on 06.05.2024. Medical documents are annexed along with the additional affidavit dated 02.12.2025 which clearly reflects that his sister-in-law Anita Sarma was suffering from cancer and she was under treatment in the Department of Radiology, Apollo Speciality Hospital.

¶25

It is submitted that his sister-in-law finally succumbed as a result of her ailment.

¶26

The impugned order is marked as Annexure-D of the petition. It is discernible that the petitioner has indeed procrastinated the case but on the principle that the accused is to be heard, it appears that an order to crossexamine PW-1 may be passed.

¶27

I have considered the submissions that there are 26 (Twenty Six) other proceedings in which the petitioner has cooperated and has appeared regularly. I have also scrutinized the orders passed by the Trial Court marked as Annexure-P-1 of the additional affidavit, which includes the orders dated 06.05.2024, 06.06.2024, 21.06.2024, 09.09.2024, 23.10.2024, 12.12.2024, 21.02.2025, 08.05.2025, 03.06.2025, 23.07.2025 and 26.09.2025 and the earlier orders marked as Annexure-B, dated 20.11.2021, 12.01.2022, 15.02.2022, 29.03.2022, 23.05.2022, 05.07.2022, 08.08.2022, 12.10.2022, 19.11.2022, 15.02.2023, 04.05.2023, 05.07.2023, 15.09.2023, 18.11.2023 and subsequent orders wherefrom it could be deciphered that the case has been

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

procrastinated by the petitioner, but as the accused is not to be prejudiced, I deem it appropriate to allow the petitioner to cross-examine only the PW-1.

¶30

Thereby, the order dated 06.05.2024 passed in C.R. Case No. 1902/2021 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri is set aside and the learned Trial Court is to allow the petitioner/accused to cross-examine only PW1.

¶31

It is also noted that this case is fixed for statement/defence and argument but for the interest of justice, the prayer of the petitioner to cross-examine PW1 is allowed.

¶32

Trial Court to make every endeavour to conclude the examination of PW-1 expeditiously.

¶33

Petition is disposed of accordingly with a cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) to be paid to the respondent No. 2

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Chandan Deka v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Deka v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mridul Kumar Laskar Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Mridul Kumar Laskar Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Merry Laskar Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smti Rima Koushik Sarmah and 4 Ors.

Prasad Kumar Chanda Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Must Rupbhan Beowa Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Ors.