JUDGMENT :

K.R.Surana, J

Heard the petitioner-in-person, who is an advocate. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Govt. Advocate.

2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made two prayers, viz., (a) for directing the Deputy Commissioner of Police (West), Guwahati to conduct an enquiry and prejudice caused to the petitioner and to take disciplinary action against the second officer-in-charge for the same; and (b) to direct the Police Commissioner, being the head of Guwahati City Police to transfer the case to All Women Police Station for proper investigation of the same.

3) The petitioner projects herself to be a transgirl and by citing the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 5 SCC 438, it has been submitted that she is entitled to be treated as a “third gender”.

4) It may be mentioned that on 07.09.2023, when the matter was called, the petitioner-in-person had made a prayer for in-camera hearing in the Judge’s Chamber as submissions made in the open Court may cause her some embarrassment. The in-camera hearing in Judge’s Chamber was refused, but the petitioner- in- person was permitted to provide a written note to be kept in a sealed cover to protect and respect her privacy. On the last date of hearing, before the hearing had commenced, the Court had given an opportunity to the petitioner-in-person to hear the matter as the last item so that by then other advocates would have left and she would not feel any embarrassment. However, the petitioner-in-person had declined the offer and expressed her willingness to make her submissions in open Court. Nonetheless, in order to protect her identity as well as her privacy, the live streaming of Court proceeding was stopped. In light of above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the Registry be directed to mask the name of the petitioner-in-person wherever possible.

5) On 17.05.2023, the petitioner-in-person had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Jalukbari P.S., which was registered as Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 296/2023 under sections 341, 323, 354A, 34 IPC, inter alia, alleging as follows:-

“Sir,

In regards to the subject cited above, I do humbly bring to your kind attention that yesterday at about 11:25 pm on 16.05.2023, at Pandu Cabin, when I was crossing road at my colony, one of our neighbor namely, Jakir Hussain rang me up for a discussion pertaining to his illegal and unauthorized catering service (which includes supply of alcoholic items and supply of boys and girls), which I immediately denied for the legal assistance and warned him not to approach me further, and at that same moment Md. Mansur Alam, Md. Taslim, Md. Aslam, Mrs. Munni Khatun, Miss. Afsana Khatun, and Bittu Begum came from behind and hold my hairs and touched my private parts and assaulted me in a group by kicking me on my belly, face, on my private parts and scratched my body. Following which, I was completely shocked and petrified and somehow I managed to call on 112 (National Help Line), and I was rescued after then.

That seeing no other way out, I am approaching you for the necessary investigation and provide me justice accordingly.”

6) The petitioner-in-person had submitted that after the incident, she had called national helpline number 112 and she was rescued. However, the police personnel, instead of making on-spot enquiry, brought the petitioner to the police station, then took her for her medical examination, and the FIR was lodged later. It was submitted that although the main culprits with their motivators and supporters were apprehended after 2-3 hours of the incident, but due to repeated intervention of the Second Officer-in-charge, neither the case was registered under appropriate sections, nor her statement was immediately recorded under section 161 CrPC. It was submitted that the Second Officer-in-Charge made no attempt to have her statement reco