Ashraf Ahmed Laskar And 3 Ors. vs The State Of Assam And Anr

Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010236172025

undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1305/2025
ASHRAF AHMED LASKAR AND 3 ORS.
SON OF MOHAMMED ALI LASKAR, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO 278, WARD
NO3, ITKHOLA, CHANIALA ROAD, P.S-SILCHAR SADAR, DIST-CACHAR,
ASSAM. PRESENTLY WORKING AT V.P INDEX ANALYST AT CITI BANK,
BLOCK NO,B6, NORTH WING, GOREGAON MUMBAI-400063.
2: YUNUS PARVEZ LASKAR
SON OF MOHAMMED ALI LASKAR
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.278
WARD NO 3
ITKHOLA BAZAR
P.S-SILCHAR SADAR
DIST-CACHAR
ASSAM.
3: MOHAMMED ALI LASKAR
SON OF LATE SUNAHAR ALI LASKAR
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.278
WARD NO 3
ITKHOLA BAZAR
P.S-SILCHAR SADAR
DIST-CACHAR
ASSAM.
4: REHANA BEGUM LASKAR
SON OF MOHAMMED ALI LASKAR
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.278
WARD NO 3
ITKHOLA BAZAR
P.S-SILCHAR SADAR
DIST-CACHAR
ASSAM
VERSUS

Page No.# 2/5
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM.
2:MOUSHOMI AKTAR BARBHUIYA
DAUGHTER OF AKLAS UDDIN BARBHUIYA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJYESWARPUR PT. III
P.O AMALA
P.S-LALA
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM-788168
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA, J NABI,MR. T A CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ(R-2),MD A RAHMAN(R-
2),MR H I CHOUDHURY(R-2)

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
Date : 25-09-2026
1 . Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. T.A.
Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent No. 1. Also heard
Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 2.
2 . By this application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, read with Article
227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the
proceeding of M.R. (D.V.) Case No. 115/2025, filed under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter, “the D.V. Act”, pending before
the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 2, Hailakandi, against the
petitioners.
3. The petitioners have also challenged the order, dated 01.09.2025,
passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), No. 2, Haailakandi, by
which, the learned Court had issued notice to the petitioners.

Page No.# 3/5
4. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that a
bare perusal of the complaint petition filed under the D.V. Act shows that the
complainant had claimed all her reliefs against the petitioner No. 1. i.e., her
husband.
5. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also
submitted that the reliefs sought for under Sections 18/19/20/21/22 of the D.V.
Act, are only against the petitioner No. 1, i.e. husband of the complainant.
6. Mr. Mahanta further stated that petitioner Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are the
brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively of the complainant
and he submits that there are no specific allegation mentioned under the D.V.
Act in the complaint against the petitioner Nos.2,3 & 4.
7. Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/
complainant submits that there was a period during the married life of the
informant when she resided with the petitioner’s parents i.e. petitioner Nos. 3
and 4 and therefore, the residence of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 also has to be
regarded as a shared household within the meaning of the D.V. Act.
8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted
that, although the husband of the informant is the petitioner No. 1 and he is not
pressing the present application vis-à-vis the petitioner No. 1, therefore, learned
counsel for the respondent also does not wish to address the court with regard
to the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner No. 1 i.e. husband.
However, the remaining respondents being necessary parties to the
proceedings, in the absence of whom, any order affecting the said parties
cannot be passed and that is why the proceedings as against them cannot be
quashed.

Page No.# 4/5

9. Responding to the submission of learned senior counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner No. 2 is a cancer patient and all the petitioners,
barring the petitioner No. 1 are aged persons, it is submitted that their
presence in the court on every date is not necessary and in the event, any
application for dispensing with their attendance is submitted, the learned court
below would certainly consider the same favourably.
10. As regards the point of maintainability, learned counsel for the
petitioner has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shaurabh
Kumar Tripathi –Vs- Vidhi Rawal, reported in 2025 SCC online SC 1158
wherein it has been held that High Courts can exercise power under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. (6 and 528 of the BNSS) for quashing the proceedings, emanating
from the application under Section 12 (1) of the D.V. Act, pending before the
court of any learned Magistrate.
11. In response thereto, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has
pointed out that in the same decision, it has been held that considering the
object of the D.V. Act, the High Courts should exercise caution and
circumspection when dealing with an application under Section 12 (1) of the
D.V. Act, and normally, interference under Section 482 is warranted only in the
case of gross illegality or injustice. Therefore, the present case is not a fit case
for exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as the
present case is not a case of gross illegality or injustice.
12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the
decisions of the Apex Court in Achin Gupta –Vs.- State of Haryana and
another , reported in 2025 3 SCC 756 and Kashan Kausar @ Sonam and
others –Vs. the State of Bihar and others , reported in 2022 6 SCC 599 in
support of his prayer for quashing of the proceedings, but the aforesaid cases

Page No.# 5/5
relate to quashing of FIR and charge sheet in regular criminal cases, whereas
the proceedings under the D.V. Act are of a quasi-criminal nature and no penal
consequences are to be faced by the respondents.
13. In view of the above discussions, this court declines to exercise its
inherent powers to close the proceedings pending before the learned
Magistrate. However, it is provided that in the event of any application for
dispensing with the regular appearance of the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is filed
before learned Trial Court, the same shall be duly considered by the learned
Magistrate. It is also expected that the proceedings will be concluded as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 (six) months from the
date of communication of this order.
14. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE
Comparing Assistant