Gauhati High Court
Sri Jadab Goswami vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 3 August, 2026
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010012402026
2026:GAU-AS:10750
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1046/2026
SRI JADAB GOSWAMI
S/O- LATE KARTICK GOSWAMI, RESIDENT OF KRISHNA NAGAR, P.O. AND
P.S. MAKUM, DISTRICT TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN- 786170
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST
DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
(PCCF)
ARANYA BHAWAN
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI
ASSAM.
4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER (DFO)
DIGBOI DIVISION
DIGBOI
DISTRICT TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
5:THE RANGE OFFICER
LAKHIPATHER RANGE
UNDER DIGBOI FOREST DIVISION
Page No.# 2/4
DISTRICT TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (SP)
TINSUKIA
DISTRICT TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE
MAKUM POLICE STATION
DISTRICT TINSUKIA
ASSAM
8:M/S MOHINI TIMBERS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
LOCATED AT MAKUM
DISTRICT TINSUKIA
ASSA
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. K. Sen, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Roy, Government Advocate
: Mr. I. Borthakur, Standing Counsel
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 03.08.2026
Heard Mr. B. K. Sen, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Petitioner and Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned Government
Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 6, and
7. I have also heard Mr. I. Borthakur, the learned Standing
counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4,
and 5.
Page No.# 3/4
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner
being aggrieved by the non-registration of the FIR submitted
before the Officer-in-Charge, Makum Police Station on
15.06.2023.
3. It is also the case of the Petitioner that as the Officer-in-
Charge of the Makum Police Station did not register the said
FIR, the Petitioner in accordance with Section 154(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’) have
also sent the communication to the Superintendent of Police,
Tinsukia District.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that in spite of the said
communication being sent to the Superintendent of Police,
Tinsukia, the FIR which was submitted by the Petitioner in the
year 2023 have not been registered. It is under such
circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing
the present writ petition in the year 2026.
5. It is the opinion of this Court that the Petitioner has an
alternative and efficacious statutory remedy in terms with
Section 156(3) of the Code, if the Petitioner was aggrieved by
the non-registration of the FIR. In this regard, this Court finds it
very relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Page No.# 4/4
Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 wherein the Supreme Court
had categorically observed that the exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution is not permissible taking
into account the statutory remedy available under Section
156(3) of the Code.
6. Considering the above, this Court therefore is not inclined to
entertain the writ petition for which the instant writ petition
stands dismissed.
7. Before parting with the records, this Court observed that if
the Petitioner is aggrieved by the non-registration of the FIR or
the investigation being not carried out, the dismissal of the
instant writ petition shall not preclude or prejudice the Petitioner
to approach the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate in terms
with Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
