Disposed¶28

Rehena Begum v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC9 Jun 2026Crl.Rev.P./127/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Protest petition treated as complaint; FIR cannot be treated as complaint Section 2(d) CrPC; objection petition against Final Report rejected; fresh protest petition permitted; Sections 397/482 CrPC revision; Gauhati High Court; Justice Shamima Jahan; Crl.Rev.P./127/2022; Kamrup (M) JMFC; fake PRC; MBBS admission fraud; informant; F.R. Final Report exoneration.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file a fresh protest petition before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M); the Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of without either accepting the F.R. or upholding the rejection of the objection petition. ¶28

Rehena Begum Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), rejecting the petitioner's objection/protest petition against the Final Report, is a final order capable of being challenged in this revision petition.

¶20

Court's answer

The order dated 03.03.2022 is not a final order: the Judicial Magistrate First Class neither accepted the F.R. nor finally rejected the objection petition, but observed that the objection petition was not in proper form and granted liberty to file a proper protest petition; therefore the said order does not amount to a final rejection.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Since the impugned order itself directs that a fresh protest petition may be filed, the petitioner is allowed to file a fresh protest petition as directed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M).

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Shamima Jahan, J) disposed of a Criminal Revision Petition (Crl.Rev.P./127/2022) filed under Sections 397 and 482 of the CrPC challenging the order dated 03.03.2022 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), whereby the informant's objection/protest petition against the Final Report exonerating respondent No. 2 (alleged fake/forged PRC used to secure MBBS admission and Government service) was rejected on the ground that it did not fulfil the essential requirements of a complaint under Section 2 (d) CrPC. Holding that the impugned order was not final since it neither accepted the F.R. nor finally rejected the objection petition but merely granted liberty to submit a proper protest petition, the High Court allowed the petitioner to file a fresh protest petition and disposed of the revision.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010063612022

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./127/2022

¶6

REHENA BEGUM

¶7

W/O- DR. MOHD. MERAJ ALAM, D/O- MUSLIM ALI, R/O- SUNDARBARI, P.S. JALUKBARI, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶10

2:DR. MOHD. MERAJ ALAM S/O- HAJEE MOHAMMED NAJMUDDIN R/O- GAUHATI MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-05 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSA

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, H A AHMED,DR. R HOQUE,MR A S SK

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A DAS (R-2),MR. A PHUKAN (R-2,MR. A CHETIA (R-2),MR. P DEKA (R-2)

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 10.06.2026

¶17

Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K. Baishya, learned

¶18

Page No.# 2/3

¶19

Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the State respondents; and Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

¶20

By this application filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), whereby the objection petition filed by the petitioner against the final report was rejected.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that he lodged an FIR against respondent No. 2 on 09.07.2015, alleging, inter alia, that the Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC) of respondent No. 2 was a fake and a forged document. It is further stated that, by using the said PRC, respondent No. 2 had secured admission to the MBBS course and, he thereafter, started working under the Government of Assam.

¶22

The petitioner further states that on completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted an F.R., i.e., Final Report, exonerating respondent no. 2 from the charges. Thereafter, the said F.R., i.e., Final Report was submitted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Kamrup (M) and that, the case was subsequently handed over to the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Kamrup (M). In pursuance to the submission of the Final Report, the court had issued a notice to the informant as per the procedure and the informant on receipt of the notice had filed a Protest Petition against the same.

¶23

In the said Protest Petition, it is seen that the petitioner has prayed for considering the FIR lodged as a complaint with the additional prayer for not accepting the F.R. of the case lodged by him. The learned court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Kamrup (M) by order dated 03.03.2022, had observed that the protest petition filed by the petitioner/informant does not fulfill the

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

essential requirements of a complaint as per Section 2 (d) of the CrPC. Further, it was observed that, an FIR cannot be treated as a complaint, although an objection petition can be treated as a complaint but in the said objection petition, the prayer was made to consider the FIR as the complaint, which, however, cannot be done, as the same was not provided under the Law. It is also seen that the petitioner/informant was given the liberty to file a proper protest petition as per law.

¶26

It is noticed that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Kamrup (M), by its order dated 03.03.2022, had not finally passed an order by accepting the F.R. or by rejecting the objection petition filed by the petitioner/informant. Rather an observation was made that the said objection petition was not in the proper form as per law and accordingly, a liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a proper protest petition. As such, it is noticed that the said order dated 03.03.2022, cannot be stated to be a final order since the same has provided that a fresh protest petition can be filed.

¶27

As such, the petitioner is allowed to file a fresh protest petition as directed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Kamrup (M).

¶28

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Rehena Begum v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rehena Begum 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

Salimuddin Vs the State of Assam

Rajib Hussain and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Bitu Gogoi Vs the State of Assam

Sabanaz Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Pankaj Kumar Jhunjhunwala Vs Kanhayalal Surana and Sons and Anr.

Marjan Begum Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.