Dismissed¶30

Smti. Bibha Paul v. the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Sept 2025WP(C)/5027/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court, WP(C)/5027/2025, order dated 04.09.2025 (Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.): writ petition by Smti. Bibha Paul alleging inaction of Gauripur Police Station regarding her Ejahar dated 21.08.2025 dismissed in view of the principles of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 409 — FIR registration/investigation grievances to be pursued under Sections 36, 154(3), 156(3) and 200 CrPC rather than writ jurisdiction; alternative remedy not an absolute bar but the High Court should not ordinarily interfere. Enquiry culminated in a non-FIR proceeding under Section 126 of the BNSS (Gauripur PS NFIR Case No. 504/2025) sent to the District Magistrate, Dhubri.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed and the written instructions placed before the Court were made part of the records. ¶30

Smti. Bibha Paul Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed and the written instructions placed before the Court were made part of the records.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition complaining of the alleged inaction of the Gauripur Police Station with regard to the Ejahar lodged by the petitioner on 21.08.2025 should be entertained by this Court, given the limited scope of writ jurisdiction and the principles laid down in Sakiri Vasu (2008) 2 SCC 409.

¶22

Court's answer

This Court observed (vide its order dated 29.08.2025, after referring to Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 409) that the scope of invoking the writ jurisdiction is very limited.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

In view of the aforesaid discourse and the principles of law laid down (extracted from Sakiri Vasu, (2008) 2 SCC 409), this Court is of the opinion that no further interference is warranted, and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court — W.P.(C) No. 5027/2025 (order dated 04.09.2025, Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.). Smti. Bibha Paul's writ petition complaining of the alleged inaction of the Gauripur Police Station with regard to an Ejahar lodged by her on 21.08.2025 was dismissed. The Court, which had observed in its order dated 29.08.2025 that the scope of invoking the writ jurisdiction is very limited, extracted the principles laid down in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 409 — namely, that the High Court should discourage writ petitions or petitions under Section 482 CrPC merely because an FIR has not been registered or properly investigated, the remedy for such grievance lying under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police officers concerned and, failing that, under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC; and that while alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, the High Court should not ordinarily interfere where an alternative remedy exists — and held that no further interference was warranted. The Court noted that the enquiry pursuant to the Ejahar culminated in a non-FIR proceeding against the accused persons under Section 126 of the BNSS (Gauripur PS NFIR Case No. 504/2025), sent to the learned District Magistrate, Dhubri, and made the written instructions placed before it part of the records.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010195272025

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/5027/2025

¶6

SMTI. BIBHA PAUL

¶7

W/O DWIJENDRA NATH PAUL, WARD NO. 16, DHUBRI, PIN-783301, DHUBRI DISTRICT, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007

¶12

4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI PIN-783301 DHUBRI DISTRICT ASSAM 5:THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DHUBRI PIN-783301

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

DHUBRI DISTRICT ASSAM 6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER GAURIPUR REVENUE CIRCLE GAURIPUR PIN-783331 DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE GAURIPUR POLICE STATION PIN-783331 DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 8:BATSU KARMAKAR R/O SUBASH PALLY P.S.- GAURIPUR PIN-783331 DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 9:SAMBHU SAHA R/O SUBASH PALLY P.S.- GAURIPUR PIN-783331 DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 10:RAJU SAHA R/O SUBASH PALLY P.S.- GAURIPUR PIN-783331 DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 11:SHANTANU SAHA R/O SUBASH PALLY P.S.- GAURIPUR PIN-783331 DIST- DHUBRI ASSA

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SISHIR DUTTA, MR D J MEDHI

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM

¶17

Page No.# 3/4

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶19

ORDER

¶20

04.09.2025

¶21

Heard Shri S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri D.J. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri H. Sharma, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate as well as Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department.

¶22

The grievance of the petitioner is the alleged inaction of the Gauripur Police Station with regard to an Ejahar lodged by the petitioner on 21.08.2025.

¶23

This Court vide order dated 29.08.2025, after referring to the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 had observed that the scope of invoking the writ jurisdiction is very limited. However, the learned State Counsel was directed to obtain instructions.

¶24

Shri H. Sharma, the learned State counsel has placed before this Court written instructions furnished by the concerned Officer-in-Charge Gauripur P.S. as per which the enquiry, pursuant to the Ejahar lodged on 21.08.2025 was done which culminated in a non FIR proceeding against the accused persons under Section 126 of the BNSS vide Gauripur PS NFIR Case No. 504/2025 and the same has been sent to the learned District Magistrate, Dhubri.

¶25

As regards the case of Sakiri Vasu (supra), Shri Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the facts of the case on which the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been rendered are distinguishable. This Court is

¶26

Page No.# 4/4

¶27

however more concerned with the principles laid down in the aforesaid case and the relevant observations are extracted herein below:

¶28

“ 27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 CrPC simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC.

¶29

28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.”

¶30

In view of the aforesaid discourse and the principles of law laid down, this Court is of the opinion that no further interference is warranted and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

¶31

The written instructions placed before this Court are made part of the records.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Smti. Bibha Paul v. the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti. Bibha Paul v. the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Herra Baruah

The Bagasa Plantations Pvt. Ltd., Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Mohit Uddin Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and Othrs

Bidya Prasad Chauhan @ Bidya Prosad Chohan Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Pramod Kumar Sharma Vs the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and 7 Ors.

Jahirul Islam and 44 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 11 Ors.