Smt. Dr. M.J. Difi and Anr. v. The State of Tripura and Ors
Court: High Court of Tripura
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Tripura judgment dated 2026-04-27. Smt. Dr. M.J. Difi and Anr. v. The State of Tripura and Ors. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
TRHC010004682025 HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA A G A R T A L A Crl. Petn. No. 12 of 2025 Smt. Dr. M. J. Difi and Anr. W/o K. Pradeep Krishnaraj, D/o Shri Manikandan Mr. K. Manikandan S/o Kunjupillai, Both are residents of MJD Bhavan, Thandrampoika Muriyil, Ayloorkoonam, District- Thiruvananthapuram, State- Kerala, Pin - 695607 – V e r s u s – The State of Tripura Represented by the PP, High COurt of Tripura, Agartala. The Superintendent of Police South Tripura District, Belonia, Pin - 799155. The Officer-in-Charge Belonia Police Station, Belonia, South Tripura, Pin- 799155 Shri K. Pradeep Krishnaraj, I. A. S. S/o T. Krishnaraj, R/o 171, Durganagar, Muthalakurichy, Kalkulam, Thuckalay, District- Kanyakumari, State- Tamil Nadu, Pin- 629175, presently posted as Addl. District Magistrate, South Tripura District, Belonia, Pin 799155 For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. S. Sarkar, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. D. Sinha, Adv. Ms. M. Sarkar, Adv. Mr. D. Gope, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Datta, P. P. Mr. K.
Roy, Adv. Yes No Whether fit for reporting : ✔ 2026:THC:541 TRHC010004682025 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA ORDER 27. 04. 2026 Heard learned counsel of both sides. [2] The present respondent No. 4 submitted one FIR against the present petitioners on 16. 01. 2025 which was registered under Sections 329(4), 115 (2), 356(2), 351(2) and Section 3 (5) of BNS, 2023. [3] During the investigation of that case, the investigating officer issued one notice to both the petitioners under Section 35(3) of BNSS on 07. 02. 2025 asking them to appear within 10(ten) days before the investigating officer. [4] Challenging the said notice, the present petition has been filed. [5] Mr. S.
Sarkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that if the case is presently disposed of on the ground that already 10 days time from issuance of said notice is expired long ago, the investigating officer may reopen the investigation again and issue fresh notice to the sufferance of the present petitioners. Learned senior counsel further submits that challenging the said FIR itself, another criminal petition bearing Crl. Petn. No. 13 of 2025 is already filed before this Court which is also pending. Therefore, till disposal of the said Crl. Petn. No. 13 of 2025, the present criminal petition may also be kept alive. [6] Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that already the instant criminal petition has become infructuous as the time of 10 days for appearance of the accused persons before the 2026:THC:541 TRHC010004682025 investigating officer expired long ago.
Therefore, the investigating officer also cannot even enforce the said notice now. [7] Mr. R. Datta, learned P. P. appearing for the State also share the similar view like Mr. Roy, leaned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. [8] This court has considered the submissions of both sides. [9] The FIR of the case which is under challenge before this Court in Crl. Petn. No. 13 of 2025 will be heard on merit after hearing the parties. However, so far this present criminal petition is concerned, it has already become infructuous as 10 days time for appearance of the petitioners before the investigating officer in pursuance of the said notice dated 07. 02. 2025 expired long ago and even the investigating officer also cannot press the said notice now.
The apprehension of the petitioners is that if this case is disposed of, further notice may be issued to them by the investigating officer for their inconveniences and harassment, but the same cannot be taken into consideration in the instant criminal petition as the challenge in the instant criminal petition is limited only to the notice dated 07. 02. 2025. Considering thus, this criminal petition is disposed of being infractuous. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. JUDGE Sujay
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.