SRI BISWAJIT BARUAH v. THE STATE OF ASSAM & Anr.

SRI BISWAJIT BARUAH S/O- LATE DURGESWAR BARUAH, R/O- WARD NO.- 1, P.O AND P.S - SONARI ,CHARAIDEO, DISTRICT- CHARAIDEO, PIN- 785690, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:KARUNA DEY S/O- LATE NAKUL DEY. R/O- BHOJOGAON NEAR RAILWAY GATE P.S- SONARI DISTRICT -CHARAIDEO ASSAM PIN- 78569 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B BARMAN, MRS. H. BARUAH,M. KALITA,R. BARMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. D PATHAK (R-2),MR. R DE (R-2),MR. P TELI (R- 2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA Date : 01.12.2025 ORDER Page No.# 2/3

Heard Mr. B Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Mr. R De, learned counsel appearing for informant.

This revision is directed against the FIR vide Sonari P.S Case No. 196/2023 and PRC Case No. 80/2025 pending before the Court of Ld. C.J.M, Charaideo.

The case has been charge-sheeted and as per the charge-sheet, it appears that the allegations against the present petitioner is that on

03.12.2023, at about 12 Noon, the daughter of the informant had some argument with another classmate as a result of which the petitioner, being the Prinicipal of the institute i.e. Dibyalata Ideal Academy at Sonari, administered punishment to the daughter of the informant and also beat her from behind as a result of which, she became unconscious and she had to be hospitalized and the authorities of the said institute also did not informant about the occurrence. Hence, the case.

Initially, the case was registered u/s 320 IPC r/w Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. But in course of the investigation, it was revealed that the age of the victim was above 18 years because of which Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 was not invoked at the time of filing of the charge-sheet.

Mr. B Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain factual aspects of the matter relating to discrepancy between the statements of the victim before the Ld. Magistrate and disputed the allegations that the petitioner did not inform about the incident to the informant. Page No.# 3/3

It was further pointed out that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of 13(thirteen) days and despite being advised to take the opinion of the Department of Neurology, A.M.C.H, Dibrugarh, the victim was taken to the Department of Medicine, A.M.C.H, Dibrugarh. It was also stated that it was stated by the victim before the Ld. Magistrate that some other teacher had pushed the victim from behind but the I/O did not record the statements of the same teacher.

In the considered view of this Court, all of this are factual aspects of the case which can only be decided by the Ld. Trial Court.

The petitioner has not made out any grounds warranting advocation of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court on any of the settled principles permitting such a course of action.

Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present petitioner and accordingly, the same is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant