Gauhati High Court
Crl.Pet./28/2026 of Sh. Lalmuanawma Mathipi Vs State of Mizoram and Anr. on 16 September 2026
GAHC030006872026 THE GAUHATI
GAHC030006872026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./28/2026
Sh. Lalmuanawma Mathipi
S/o M. Matha (L)
R/o Luangmual, Aizawl, Mizoram
Landmark - Near Mizoram Law College
Contact No. 8414882888
Pin 796 009
VERSUS
State of Mizoram and Anr.
R/b the Public Prosecutor
Gauhati HIgh Court, Aizawl Bench
Office Address - MINECO, Khatla, Aizawl
Landmark - Advocate General's Office Building Pin - 796 001 2:The Mizoram LoKayukt Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Jacinta Zothanmawii Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram for R1
B E F O R E
HON’BLE 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
17.09.2026
Heard Ms. Jacinta Zothanmawii, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent.
2. By filing the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 14.07.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Aizawl, in SR (PCA) No. 4 of 2026, whereby the learned Special Court has decided to proceed to the stage of framing of charge against the petitioner. The petitioner contends that he has been deprived of the opportunity to seek discharge under Section 250 of the BNSS before framing of charge.
3. It is submitted that although the learned Special Judge has recorded that prima facie case exists against the petitioner (A2) for framing charge against him for offence under Section 120B, 409, of IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) & (b) of PC Act, 1988, no formal charge has yet been framed and the matter is fixed on 21.09.2026 for framing of charge.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the meantime, the petitioner has filed discharge application before the learned Special Court under Section 250 of the BNSS seeking discharge, which is stated to be pending consideration and the next date is fixed on 23.09.2026.
5. An objection has been submitted on behalf of the respondent.
6. From the above, it appears that although the parties are said to be heard on the question of charge as reflected in the impugned order, no charge has yet been framed and it also appears that no final decision as regards the provisions under which the charge is to be framed has been taken by the learned Trial Court and after filing of the discharge application on behalf of the petitioner, the matter has been fixed for consideration of the said application.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the learned Trial Court has fixed the date for consideration of the discharge application, the same may be decided on merits.
8. It appears that since no final decision on the framing of charge has been taken, despite recording of a prima facie satisfaction in the impugned order, there appears to be no impediment in taking up the discharge application filed by the petitioner on merits.
9. Accordingly and as agreed to, this instant petition is disposed of with the direction to the learned Trial Court to decide the discharge application filed by the petitioner on merits after hearing the parties and without regard to the impugned order passed by it earlier.
10. The date fixed by the learned Trail Court for framing of charges on 21.09.2026 shall stand deffered till a decision is taken on the application seeking discharge by the petitioner.
11. Petition stands closed accordingly.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant