Disposed¶20

Dhyanjeet Dutta v. State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC15 Mar 2026I.A.(Crl.)/282/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Typographical/clerical error correction; interlocutory application; Gauhati High Court; modification of earlier order dated 23.02.2026 in Crl.Pet.1360/2024; wrong date 17.09.2024 substituted with 12.09.2024; order of learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 4/2024; amendment of cause-title; order to be read as part of earlier order.

What did the court decide?

Correction of the typographical error in the order dated 23.02.2026 (paragraphs 2 and 20), substitution of 12.09.2024 for 17.09.2024, reading of this order as part of the order dated 23.02.2026, and permission to the petitioner to amend the cause title of Crl.Pet.1360/2024. ¶20

Dhyanjeet Dutta Vs State of Assam and Anr. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the typographical error in the order dated 23.02.2026 passed in Crl.Pet.1360/2024 (paragraphs 2 and 20), where the date 17.09.2024 appears in place of 12.09.2024, should be corrected, and whether the petitioner may amend the cause-title accordingly.

¶17

Court's answer

It is directed that at paragraph 2 of the order dated 23.02.2026 the reference shall read as order dated 12.09.2024 instead of order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Similarly, paragraph 20 of the order dated 23.02.2026 is corrected so that the interference referred to therein reads as being with the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 4/2024.

¶19

Key takeaways

The present order has to be read as a part of the order dated 23.02.2026.ratio¶19
Since the mistake arose from the cause-title of the criminal petition stating 17.09.2024 in place of 12.09.2024, the petitioner is allowed to make the necessary modification in the cause title of the petition.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Shamima Jahan, J.), 16-03-2026, in I.A.(Crl.)/282/2026 (Dhyanjeet Dutta v. State of Assam & Anr.): Disposes of an interlocutory application seeking correction of a typographical error in the order dated 23.02.2026 passed in Crl.Pet.1360/2024, wherein paragraphs 2 and 20 erroneously recorded the challenged order as dated 17.09.2024 instead of 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 4/2024. Directs that paragraphs 2 and 20 be corrected accordingly, orders that the present order be read as part of the order dated 23.02.2026, and permits the petitioner to make the corresponding correction in the cause-title of the criminal petition.

Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010054172026

2026:GAU-AS:3810

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/282/2026

¶6

DHYANJEET DUTTA

¶7

S/O SRI RANJAN DUTTA R/O MILAN NAGAR, P.S. AND DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785001.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY PP ASSAM

¶10

2:SRI BASTAB TAMULI S/O LATE PABITRA TAMULI R/O TILLIKIAM BEZGAON P.S. PULIBOR DIST. JORHAT ASSA

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P KATAKI, MRS R BEGUM,MS S BARPUJARI,MS. A LALA

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. DARAK ULLAH, AMICUS CURIAE (R-2)

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 16-03-2026

¶17

By this interlocutory application, the applicant has sought for modification of the typographical error appearing in the order dated 23.02.2026 passed in Crl.Pet.1360/2024 relating to the date of order being

¶18

Page No.# 2/2

¶19

reflected in two paragraphs, i.e., para 2 and 20. It is submitted and also can be seen from the records that in place of 17.09.2024, the date should have been 12.09.2024 because the applicant/petitioner had challenged for setting aside of the order dated 12.09.2024. As such, it is therefore directed that at paragraph 2 of the order dated 23.02.2026 instead of order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, it should be order dated 12.09.2024. Similarly, in paragraph 20 of the said order, this Court while interfering with the order stated as order dated 17.09.2024 but the same should be order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 4/2024. This order has to be read as a part of the order dated 23.02.2026. Further, it is seen that the mistake was due to the fact that in the cause-title of the criminal petition filed by the petitioner, the date of order was given as 17.09.2024 whereas the same should have been 12.09.2024. As such the petitioner is also allowed to make the necessary modification in the cause title of the petition, which was disposed of by the order dated 23.02.2026.

¶20

Interlocutory application stands disposed of with the above modification and direction.

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

Comparing Assistant

Dhyanjeet Dutta v. State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhyanjeet Dutta v. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Najim Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Alom Uddin Laskar Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Bozler Rahman Mondal and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Nobin Kemprai Vs Rajib Kharigapsa and Anr.

Hitesh Das Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Arup Chandra Roy and 21 Ors. Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.