Crl.L.P./34/2024 of MD AIBOR ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS on 9 June 2026

ORDER

10.06.2026 (Nelson Sailo, J) Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. IU Chowdhury, learned counsel for the applicant, who submits that the instant criminal leave petition has been filed inadvertently under Section 378 sub- section 4 of the Cr.PC, whereas in view of the proviso under Section 372 of the Cr.PC, no such leave has been contemplated, if the appeal is filed by the victim herself. [2.] The learned senior counsel submits that the same has already been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) vs. The State of Karnataka, reported in 2019 (2) SCC 752, which again was referred by the same Court in Joseph Stephen vs. Santhanasamy, reported in 2022 (13) SCC 115. He therefore, submits that the main criminal appeal may be taken up without the instant leave application, subject to, of course the delay being condoned. [3.] Mr. S Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 10 submits that since the Trial Court has passed a reasoned order, leave may not be granted. [4.] The fact, however, remains that in terms of the provision, as already stated hereinabove, there is no requirement of the leave to be granted, when the appellant is the victim herself and therefore, the objection raised by Mr.

Chauhan, learned counsel is found to be not tenable. The respondents will of course have the liberty to argue the matter on merits, when the appeal is taken up for hearing. [5.] Considering the above, no orders are required to be passed in the instant application and therefore, the same stands closed.

J U D G E J U D G E

Comparing Assistant