Gauhati High Court
Crl.Rev.P./69/2026 of RANGINA BASUMATARY Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 26 August 2026
GAHC010029272026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./69/2026 RANGINA BASUMATARY D/O PARMANANDA VILL- KOLIAGAON, PUBMAKRA, P.S. BIJNI, DIST. CHIRANG, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SAITENDRA
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010029272026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./69/2026
RANGINA BASUMATARY
D/O PARMANANDA
VILL- KOLIAGAON, PUBMAKRA, P.S. BIJNI,
DIST. CHIRANG, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:SAITENDRA NARZARY
SON OF ANANDA NARZARY VILL NO. 2 CHAITANGURI
P.S. BIJNI
DIST. CHIRANG
ASSAM
PIN-78339
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N UDDIN, L DEKA,MR S K CHHETRY,MR. M ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. A KHARBANI (R-2),MR. R K SARMA (R-2),MR.
T CHAKRABORTY (R-2),MR. D CHOUDHURY(R-2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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
Date : 27.08.2026 Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.
Page No.# 2/2 Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, as well as Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the respondent No. 2 has initiated a proceeding seeking dissolution of the marriage between respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 1.
3. Confronted with the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has entered appearance in the aforesaid proceeding.
4. It is thus apparent before this Court that the respondent had not resorted to deceit by inducing the petitioner No. 1 to enter into a lawful marriage, when there was none.
5. The learned counsel appearing for both sides have submitted that they need not pursue the present matter further and that both the parties would pursue such legal remedies, in respect of their matrimonial dispute, as are permissible in law.
6. This petition is accordingly closed, giving liberty to the parties to pursue such legal remedies as may be available in law with regard to their matrimonial disputes.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant