Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/3405/2018 of SAJID KHAN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. on 26 July 2026
GAHC010108182018 2026:GAU-AS:10272 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3405/2018 SAJID KHAN S/O YAKUB KHAN H. NO. 21, MINHAZ PATH, SIJUBARI, HATIGAON P.S. HATIGAON, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM PIN 781038. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM
GAHC010108182018
2026:GAU-AS:10272
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3405/2018
SAJID KHAN
S/O YAKUB KHAN
H. NO. 21, MINHAZ PATH, SIJUBARI, HATIGAON
P.S. HATIGAON, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM PIN 781038.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
GUWAHATI CITY
DIST.KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN - 781001.
3:THE OFICER IN CHARGE OF BHARALUMUKH P.S.
P.O. AND P.S. BHARALUMUKH
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
4:THE GENERAL MANAGER
ICIC LOMBARD GENEAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE 414 VEER SAVARKAR MARG. NEAR SIDDHI
VINAYAK TEMPLE
PARBHADEVI
MUMBAI- 400025.
5:SRI GHANAKANTA BORAH
INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(O.C. OF BHARALUMUKH POLICE STATION IN 2014)
R/O - BASONA GHAT
NEAR BANK OF BARODA
P.O. - MORIGAON
P.S.- MORIGAON
DIST.-MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN. - 782105
6:SRI JITEN KUMAR
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(INVESTIGATING OFFICER BHARALUMUKH P.S. CASE NO. 352/2014)
R/O - GOTANAGAR PNGB ROAD
NEAR GOTANAGAR HOSPITAL
P.O. - MALIGAON
P.S. - JALUKBARI
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN. 78101
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Teroonpi, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Das, Govt. Advocate Ms. M. Saikia, Advocate Ms. L. Wangla, Advocate Mr. B. K. Das, Advocate
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
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.
O R D E R
27.07.2026
Heard Ms. H. Teronpi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. N. Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3; Ms. M. Saikia, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.4; Ms. L. Wangla, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.5 and Mr. B. K. Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.6.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner being aggrieved by the Final Report No.15/15 dated 28.01.2015 as well as the order dated 22.11.2017 of Bharalumukh P.S. Case No.352/2014. The Petitioner has also sought for a direction upon the Respondent No.3, i.e. the Officer-in-Charge of the Bharalumukh Police Station to further investigate the Bharalumukh P.S. Case No.352/2014 and submit the report in Final Form. In addition to that, the Petitioner has also sought for a direction upon the Respondent Insurance Company to entertain the insurance claim in respect to the stolen vehicle bearing registration No.AS-01-BG6533.
3. This Court has duly perused the reliefs which have been sought for and in the opinion of this Court, the Petitioner has wrongly approached this Court in as much as if the Petitioner was aggrieved by the Final Report No.15/15 dated 28.01.2015 as well as the order dated 22.11.2017, the Petitioner ought to have approached the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. In so far as seeking a direction upon the Respondent No.3 to further investigate Bharalumukh P.S. Case No.352/2014, the Petitioner ought to have approached the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. In so far as the entertaining of the Petitioner's insurance claim in respect to the stolen vehicle bearing registration No.AS-01-BG-6533, the Petitioner ought to have approached either the Insurance Ombudsman or if so aggrieved before the competent Civil Court/the Consumer Forum. The public law remedy could not have been invoked by the Petitioner taking into account that statutory remedies are available.
4. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground for proceeding with the instant writ petition for which the writ petition stands dismissed.
5. Dismissal of the instant writ petition, however, shall not preclude the Petitioner to avail the statutory remedies, if so advised and permissible under the law.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant