Dismissed¶30

Abou Sufiyan Siddique and Ors. v. Smti. Nilima Parbin

Gauhati HC9 Jul 2025Crl.Pet./793/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court, Crl.Pet./793/2025, decided 10.07.2025 by Mridul Kumar Kalita, J. (neutral citation 2025:GAU-AS:8895). Section 528 BNSS, 2023 petition; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 12 and 13(1); service of notice through Protection Officer; domestic incident report; procedural deviation in notice routing without resultant prejudice; C.R. Case No. 685/2024, SDJM (S) Barpeta; criminal petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The notices sent to the petitioners were not routed through the Protection Officer as prescribed under Section 13(1) of the D.V. Act, 2005; however, the petitioners accepted that they received the notices and appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Barpeta. ¶27

Abou Sufiyan Siddique and Ors. Vs Smti. Nilima Parbin — Domestic Violence | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010148082025

2025:GAU-AS:8895

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

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Pet./793/2025

¶6

ABOU SUFIYAN SIDDIQUE AND ORS S/O- LATE ABU BAKKAR SIDDIQUE. R/O- VILL.- GOROIMARI SATRA, P.O.- TUKRAPARA, P.S.- CHHAYGAON, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM.

¶7

2: SURIYA KHATUN @ SURIYA BEGUM W/O- LATE ABU BAKKAR SIDDIQUE. R/O- VILL.- GOROIMARI SATRA P.O.- TUKRAPARA P.S.- CHHAYGAON DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶8

3: ABU ASHIQUE SIDDIQUE S/O- LATE ABU BAKKAR SIDDIQUE. R/O- VILL.- GOROIMARI SATRA P.O.- TUKRAPARA P.S.- CHHAYGAON DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

SMTI. NILIMA PARBIN D/O- NURUL HAQUE. R/O-VILL.- KUKARPAR, MOUZA- SARUKHETRI, P.O. AND P.S.SARTHEBARI, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781305.

¶11

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HAQUE, MR. S R BARBHUIYA,MR M HUSSAIN,MR A K AHMED,MR K UDDIN

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

10.07.2025

¶18

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.

¶19

2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Abou Sufiyan Siddique, 2. Suriya Khatun @Suriya Begum and 3. Abu Ashique Siddique impugning the order dated 09.05.2025, passed by the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Barpeta in C.R. Case No. 685/2024.

¶20

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Barpeta had issued notices to the present petitioners and fixed 03.07.2025 for filing of written statement.

¶21

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have appeared before the Trial Court and have prayed for some time for filing of the written statement, however, they are aggrieved with a notice received under Section 13(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, whereby the petitioners were directed to

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

submit domestic incident report.

¶24

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per Section 13(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the notices are to be sent to the protection officer by the Magistrate, who shall get it served upon the respondents within a maximum period of 2(two) days.

¶25

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the procedure prescribed for service of notice under Section 12 has not been uploaded in this case and the notice were directly issued to the petitioners by the Court.

¶26

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that though the petitioners has not suffered any prejudice, however, they are before this Court as wrong procedure was followed in sending the notice directly to the petitioners and not routing it through the protection officer.

¶27

8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Though it appears on perusal of the notice annexed along with a criminal petition as Annexure-3 that the notices sent to the petitioners were not routed through the Protection Officer as prescribed under Section 13(1) of the D.V. Act, 2005. However, in this case the petitioners have accepted that they have received the notices and also have appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Barpeta in C.R. Case No. 685/2024. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by not routing the notice sent to them under Section 13(1) though the Protection

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

Officer, this is not a fit case to invoke the powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.

¶30

9. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Abou Sufiyan Siddique and Ors. v. Smti. Nilima Parbin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abou Sufiyan Siddique and Ors. v. Smti. Nilima Parbin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Laldingliani Vs Sh Lalbiakvela (L) s/b Laldingliana and 3 Ors.

Sh. Zolianlunga and 17 Ors. Vs The State of Mizoram and 4 Ors.

Union of India and 5 Ors. Vs Sh. Hmingdailova and 4 Ors.

Arup Kumar Pathak Vs Dharani Dhar Nath and Anr.

Sri Paramesh Mallick Vs D. G Pharma and Anr.

Guneshwar Bharali @ Guneswar Bharali Vs the State of Nagaland