Kamaleswar Namasudra Vs the State of Assam and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2026)

Kamaleswar Namasudra Vs the State of Assam and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the Petitioner on merits; liberty reserved to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, if so advised.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable, or whether the Petitioner ought to have approached the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. +1 more

Court's answer

The Petitioner, instead of approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, ought to have approached the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Ratio / Principle

The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to be exercised in such circumstances (as observed by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu), and this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition, which stands dismissed.

Key takeaways

The dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude the Petitioner from approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, if so advised.obiter¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the police (Respondent Nos.4 & 5, i.e. the Officer-in-Charge, Palashbari Police Station and the In-Charge, Bijoynagar Out Post) to act on an FIR dated 17.03.2018 and arrest the accused persons. HELD, dismissing the petition: at the time the FIR was lodged the Petitioner ought to have approached the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; relying on Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, (2008) 2 SCC 409, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to be exercised in such circumstances, and the writ petition was accordingly dismissed. Before parting with the record, the Court observed that the dismissal shall not preclude the Petitioner from approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, if so advised.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010059602018

undefined

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

Case No. : WP(C)/1857/2018

KAMALESWAR NAMASUDRA S/O LT. MURA HIRA R/O VILL AND P.O. SAT PAKHALI P.S. PALASHBARI, O.P. BIJOY NAGAR, DIST. KAMRUP (RURAL), ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS THROUGH-

THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 781006.

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

ASSAM B.K. KAKOTI ROAD

ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007.

3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

AMINGAON

DIST. KAMRUP (RURAL) ASSAM

4:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE

PALASHBARI POLICE STATION DIST. KAMRUP (RURAL)

Page No.# 2/4

ASSAM

5:THE IN-CHARGE

BIJOYNAGAR OUT POST DIST. KAMRUP (RURAL) ASSAM

6:RAM SINGH S/O HARI SINGH R/O BIJOYNAGAR P.O. BIJOYNAGAR

P.S. PALASHBARI OUT POST BIJOY NAGAR

DIST. KAMRUP (RURAL) ASSAM

7:GAGAN CHOUDHURY S/O LT. HANGHADHAR CHOUDHURY R/O VILL AND P.O. SAT PAKHALI P.S. PALASHBARI OUT POST BIJOYNAGAR

DIST. KAMRUP (RURAL) ASSAM

8:JIBAN DAS S/O LT. BOGARAM DAS R/O VILL AND P.O. BIJOY NAGAR DIST. KAMRUP (RURAL) ASSA

For the Petitioner(s) : None appears

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Roy, Govt. Advocate

Page No.# 3/4

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R

17.07.2026

None appears on behalf of the Petitioner on call. Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. None appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.6 to 8.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the inaction on the part of the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 to take immediate action in respect to the FIR dated 17.03.2018 and arrest the accused persons, i.e. the Private Respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7.

This Court duly takes note of the fact that, at the relevant point of time when the FIR was lodged, i.e. on 17.03.2018, the Petitioner, instead of approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, ought to have approached the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 wherein the Supreme Court has categorically observed the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Page No.# 4/4

Constitution ought not to be exercised in such circumstances. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition for which the writ petition stands dismissed.

Before parting with the record, this Court observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude the Petitioner to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, if so advised.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant