Allowed

Ms Savita Tayem and 2 Ors. v. The State of Ap

Gauhati HC29 Oct 2025MC/3/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order restores Criminal Petition No. 72/2025, which was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the counsel's failure to appear on two consecutive dates. The court found sufficient cause for the default and allowed the restoration under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 72/2025 restored to file; Miscellaneous Case allowed and disposed of; Petition listed after 2 weeks.

Ms Savita Tayem and 2 Ors. Vs The State of Ap — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2025)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040017702025

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : MC/3/2025

¶5

Ms Savita Tayem and 2 Ors

¶6

Daughter of Logo Tayem, a permanent resident of Village Darlong, Seijosa, PO and PS Seijosa, Pakke Kessang District, Arunachal Pradesh and currently residing in H/No.32, G Sector, Opposite RK Mission Hospital, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh

¶7

2: Anita Tayem Age: Occupation : Daughter of Jorjo Tayem a permanent resident of Village Darlong, Seijosa, PO and PS Seijosa Pakke Kessang District, Arunachal Pradesh and currently residing in H/No.32 G Sector, Opposite RK Mission Hospital, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶8

3: Smti Maya Langlang Tayem Age: Occupation : Wife of Logo Tayem

¶9

a permanent resident of Veo Village, PO and PS Pakke Kessang, Pakke Kessang District, Arunachal Pradesh and currently residing at Dolo Building Niti vihar, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

The State of AP represented by the PP of AP

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioners : Mukbang Pertin, T. Y. Bhutia

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 30-10-2025

¶18

Heard Ms. T. Y. Bhutia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶19

2. This is an application praying for restoration of Criminal Petition No. 72/2025, which has been dismissed for non-prosecution on 13.08.2025.

¶20

3. The petitioners have filed a criminal petition being Criminal Petition No. 72/2025 seeking quashment of FIR in connection with Niti Vihar P.S. Case No. 15/2021, under Sections 324/448/341/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, on the basis of the settlement between the petitioners.

¶21

4. When the matter was listed on 07.08.2025 and 13.08.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to appear. This Court, having considered that on 2 (two) consecutive dates the petitioners remained unrepresented, the criminal petition was dismissed for non-prosecution for the reason that the petitioners appear to be no longer interested to pursue the matter.

¶22

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the matter was listed on 07.08.2025 and 13.08.2025 for Admission Hearing, unfortunately the counsel representing the petitioners could not appear. It is the contention of the learned counsel that on the said dates, when the matter was listed, she was at Guwahati due to some personal work and had instructed her junior associate to appear and pray for adjournment of the case. However, the junior associate could not appear on the 2 (two) dates, as a result of which, the criminal petition has been dismissed for non-prosecution. She submits that due to fault of the counsel, the

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

petitioners would suffer if the criminal petition is not restored.

¶25

6. Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that since the criminal petition has been dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-appearance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, he would not have any objection to the above prayer, for the ends of justice.

¶26

7. It is true that an appeal or revision cannot be dismissed for default or nonprosecution, but only on merits. However, an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, may be dismissed for non-prosecution or for default and there would not be any bar to restore the petition, if sufficient cause is shown for its restoration.

¶27

8. Having considered above and on consideration of the grounds for nonappearance and for restoration, this Court is satisfied that a sufficient cause is shown by the petitioners for their non-appearance on the dates when the matter was listed and on the consequential dismissal of the criminal petition for non-prosecution. Thus, I am of the considered view that the criminal petition can be restored.

¶28

9. Accordingly, criminal petition being Criminal Petition No. 72/2025, be restored to file.

¶29

10. Miscellaneous Case stands allowed and disposed of.

¶30

11. Criminal Petition be listed after 2 (two) weeks.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Ms Savita Tayem and 2 Ors. v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Savita Tayem and 2 Ors. v. The State of Ap

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

Bikash Chandra Das Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Sonto Chetry Vs Bomli Basar

Donik Tayu Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Mojum Ruyi and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Smti Yanga Mara and 4 Ors. Vs The State of Ap

Nabam Paul Vs The State of Ap