MD HAIDAR ALI vs JYOTISHMA PHUKAN — Crl.Pet./558/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528. Next hearing: : -.

CNR: GAHC010075442026

Next Hearing

: -

e-Filing Number

08-04-2026

Filing Number

Crl.Pet./3285/2026

Filing Date

08-04-2026

Registration No

Crl.Pet./558/2026

Registration Date

21-04-2026

Judge

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

Coram

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

10263 - Criminal Revisions for quashing of criminal proceeding ( 221 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528

Petitioner(s)

MD HAIDAR ALI

Adv. MR G ALAM,MR S R A NASER,MR S R A NASER, ,S K SARFRAJ KARIM,SAIDUL ROHMAN,N KAKOTI,MR S R A NASER

Respondent(s)

JYOTISHMA PHUKAN

Hearing History

Judge: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

27-04-2026

MOTION

Orders

27-04-2026
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

Summary of Crl.Pet./558/2026 The Gauhati High Court granted a stay of proceedings in the complaint case (C.R. No. 647/2025) filed by Jyotishma Phukan against her father MD Haidar Ali, finding justified grounds to suspend the trial court proceedings. The case involved allegations of attempted religious conversion and unauthorized property rental; the court considered the petitioner's age (67 years) and relationship as the complainant's father in granting the stay. Notice was issued to the respondent with a four-week return date, and trial court records were called for further consideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Crl.Pet./558/2026 The Gauhati High Court granted a stay of proceedings in the complaint case (C.R. No. 647/2025) filed by Jyotishma Phukan against her father MD Haidar Ali, finding justified grounds to suspend the trial court proceedings. The case involved allegations of attempted religious conversion and unauthorized property rental; the court considered the petitioner's age (67 years) and relationship as the complainant's father in granting the stay. Notice was issued to the respondent with a four-week return date, and trial court records were called for further consideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case