Gauhati High Court
Crl. Pet./23/2026 of SHRI SARAT CHANDRA YENISETTI Vs THE STATE OF NAGALAND on 20 September 2026
GAHC020004672026 2026:GAU-NL:485 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Crl. Pet./23/2026 SHRI SARAT CHANDRA YENISETTI S/O Y. SAMBASIVA RAO, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF APT. NO. D1608, KENDRIYA VIHAR, PHASE - III, HYDERSHAKOTE,
GAHC020004672026
2026:GAU-NL:485
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : Crl. Pet./23/2026
SHRI SARAT CHANDRA YENISETTI
S/O Y. SAMBASIVA RAO, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF APT. NO.
D1608, KENDRIYA VIHAR, PHASE - III, HYDERSHAKOTE, HYDERABAD - 91 AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 101, SANGTEMLA
WARD, DC HILL, MOKOKCHUNG, NAGALAND
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NAGALAND
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NAGALAND
Advocate for the Petitioner : S BORGOHAIN, WATITEMJEN JAMIR,TONGPOK
Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, 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.
ORDER
Date : 21-09-2026 Heard Mr. S. Borgohain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State
Respondent.
2. Mr. S. Borgohain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that there are allegations made in the FIR which this Court may not be in a position to quash at this stage. However, pursuant to the registration of the FIR and the investigation being carried out, a chargesheet has been filed. Cognisance was taken by the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court had proceeded in a manner which is in total conflict to the provisions of BNSS, 2023. He, therefore, submitted that as those aspects are not reflected in the contents of the petition and there is not specific relief sought for, the Petitioner may be permitted to withdraw, with liberty to re-file, by inserting the additional subsequent events.
3. It is the opinion of this Court upon perusal of the instant application that the submissions which have been made by the learned counsel are not pleaded nor any relief had been sought for in that regard.
4. In the interest of justice, it is the opinion of this Court that if there is a procedural violation thereby affecting the rights of the Petitioner, the Petitioner should be granted an opportunity to again approach this Court.
5. Considering the above, this Court therefore closes the instant application on withdrawal and further grants liberty to re- file, by inserting the additional subsequent events. It is also observed that the withdrawal of the instant petition shall not prejudice the Petitioner either in the trial proceedings or any subsequent proceedings. JUDGE Comparing Assistant