Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/831/2026 of SHRI DIPLU BASUMATARY Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 13 September 2026
GAHC010171732026 2026:GAU-AS:13518 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/831/2026 SHRI DIPLU BASUMATARY S/O PROFULLA BASUMATARY, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RONGKUT MATI KHULAP.O. RONGKUTP.S. HOWRAGHAT UTTAR BORBIL OUT POST
GAHC010171732026
2026:GAU-AS:13518
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/831/2026
SHRI DIPLU BASUMATARY
S/O PROFULLA BASUMATARY, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
RONGKUT MATI KHULAP.O. RONGKUTP.S. HOWRAGHAT UTTAR BORBIL
OUT POST DISTRICT KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN 782481
2: SHRI UTJAL TAMANG
S/O UTTAM BAHADUR TAMANG
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- RONGKUT SELAWOR RONGPI GAON
P.O. RONGKUT
P.S. HOWRAGHAT (UTTAR BORBIL OUT POST)
DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
PIN NO. 782481
3: SHRI. BISHAL TAMANG
S/OLAK BAHADUR TAMANG
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF- VILL- RONGKUT NEPALI GAON
P.O. RONGKUT
DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
PIN NO.78248
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N K MURRY, MS P TOKBIPI,MS N NEWME,MS S.DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/5
Linked Case : Crl.Pet./267/2026
SHRI DIPLU BASUMATARY AND 2 ORS.
S/O PROFULLA BASUMATARY
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- RONGKUT MATI KHULAP.O. RONGKUT
DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
PIN- 782481
2: SHRI UTJAL TAMANG
S/O UTTAM BAHADUR TAMANG
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- RONGKUT SELAWOR RONGPI GAON
P.O. RONGKUT
P.S. HOWRAGHAT (UTTAR BORBIL OUT POST)
DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
PIN NO. 782481
3: SHRI. BISHAL TAMANG
S/OLAK BAHADUR TAMANG
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF- VILL- RONGKUT NEPALI GAON
P.O. RONGKUT
DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
PIN NO.782481
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE LEARNED PP
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. N K MURRY
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
Page No.# 3/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
14.09.2026 Heard Mr. N. K. Murry, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Opposite party.
2. This application, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, is preferred by the applicants for restoration of Criminal Petition No. 267/2026, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court, vide order, dated 29.07.2026.
3. Mr. Murry, learned counsel for the applicants submits that on 29.07.2026, he could not remain present in the Court, as he had left for his native place at Wokha district of Nagaland and he could not return to Guwahati due to landslide in his route towards Guwahati. He also submits that there is no other provision in the BNSS, 2023, except under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023; for restoration of a case to the file, after dismissal of the same for non-prosecution and under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, he has contended to allow this application.
4. Mr. Sarma, learned APP, also submits that except Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, there is no other provision in the BNSS, 2023, for restoration of a case, which has been dismissed for non-prosecution.
5. It is to be noted here that in the case of Mohit alias Sonu and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 789, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that inherent power, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can be exercised when there is no express provision in the Court. The paragraph No. 28, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue, is extracted herein below ꟷ “28. So far as the inherent power of the High Court as contained in Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, the law in this regard is set at rest by this Court in a catena of decisions. However, we would like to reiterate that when an order, not interlocutory in nature, can be assailed in the High Court in revisional jurisdiction, then there should be a bar in invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. In other words, inherent power of the Court can be exercised when there is no remedy provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure for redressal of the grievance. It is well settled that inherent power of the court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no express provision in the Code under which order impugned can be challenged.”
6. In the case in hand, the Criminal Petition No. 267/2026, was dismissed for non-prosecution. The learned counsel for the applicant has explained as to why he could not remain present before this Court on 29.07.2026, on which, the case was dismissed for non-prosecution.
7. In view of the explanation, so forthcoming for the non-appearance of the learned counsel for the applicant on 29.07.2026, and in absence of any express provision under BNSS, 2023, for restoration of a case, which was dismissed for non-prosecution; and also taking note of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohit alias Sonu and Another (Supra), this Court is inclined to allow this petition.
8. Accordingly, it is provided that Criminal Petition No. 267/2026, be restored to file.
9. Registry shall list the Criminal Petition No. 267/2026, on 22.09.2026.
10. In terms of the above, this interlocutory application stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant