Judgement & Order (Cav):

1. Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. A. Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, being respondent No. 1; and Ms. A. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. In this petition, under Section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire proceeding of PR Case No. 2154/2021, arising out of Nagaon PS Case No. 1374/2019, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon (trial court hereinafter) and also prayed for setting aside the order dated 14.08.2025, passed by the learned trial court, by which charges were framed against the petitioner under Section 494/506 of the IPC.

Background Facts:-

3. The background facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under:-

                   “On 10.05.2019, one Smti Nayanmoni Saikia, wife of the present petitioner, had lodged one complaint before the learned trial court stating inter-alia amongst others that she got married with the petitioner herein two and half years back, as per Hindu Rights and Rituals and thereafter, they started living together as husband and wife.

                   However, after few days of the marriage, the petitioner started torturing the complainant on the demand of money and in that connection, one complaint, under Section 498(A) of the IPC, has also been filed and the same is pending for disposal.

                   Thereafter, the petitioner herein without divorcing the complainant had married another girl, namely, Barnali Rongpi, on 06.05.2019 and now they are living as husband and wife and the petitioner also threatened the complainant for dissolution of the marriage.

                   Upon the aforesaid complaint, CR Case No. 424/2019 was registered and the same was made over to the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Nagaon and by exercising the power under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, vide order dated 14.05.2019, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Nagaon, had directed the Officer-in-Charge, Nagaon, to register a case and to investigate the matter and to submit a report.

                   Thereafter, the Officer-in-Charge, Nagaon, had registered a case, being Nagaon PS Case No. 1374/2019, under Section 494/294/506/447 of the IPC and on completion of the investigation, the IO had submitted charge-sheet, being Charge-Sheet No. 1170/2019, dated 28.11.2019, under Section 494/294/506/447 of the IPC, showing the petitioner herein as absconder.

                   Thereafter, the learned trial court had taken cognizance of the offence, under Section 494/294/506/447 of the IPC and upon the said charge-sheet, PR Case No. 2154/2021 had been registered and on 14.08.2025 (impugned order), the learned court, after considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the case record, had framed charge against the present petitioner, under Section 494/506 of the IPC.”

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present petition for quashing the entire proceeding of PR Case No. 2154/2021 and also the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 on the following grounds:-

                   (i) that the impugned order of framing of charge under Section 494/506 of the IPC, by the learned trial court, against the petitioner is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

                   (ii) that though in the complaint petition the complainant (respondent No. 2) annexed one certificate of Nag Shankar Devalaya, situated Biswanath Chariali, bearing No. 303/304, dated 06.05.2019, vide Serial No. 3, the IO did not visit the said Mandir during the course of investigation nor seized the Certificate No. 303/304, dated 06.05.2019. As such, no material was collected to ascertain such marriage took place between the petitioner and Bornali Rongpi and therefore, the finding of the trial court that marriage took place between the petitioner and Bornali Rongpi, on 06.05.2019, is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

                   (iii) that in a case under Section 494 of the IPC, the prosecution must prove the authenticity of both the marriages. But, in the instant case, in respect of second marriage, the prosecution had failed any prove of any valid marriage and therefore, the impugned order of framing of charge is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

                   (iv) that according to the complainant (respondent No. 2) on 09.05.2019, the petitioner herein came with his newly wedded wife to the present resident of the complainant (respondent No. 2) and asked her for dissolution of their marriage and threatened to kill her, if she failed to do so. However, in her statement, recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, she did not state about the threat made by the petitioner and that the other witnesses were also silent about the incident that took place on 09.05.2019 and therefore, the ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC are not made out and as such, the impugned order of framing of charge under Section 506 of the IPC is bad in law and liable to be set aside

                   (v) that Section 503 of the IPC provides that – „Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation‟, but in the instant case the threat perception is missing since the exact words were not reproduced which caused alarmed to the complainant (respondent No. 2) and as such, Section 506 of the IPC is not made out and therefore, the impugned order of framing of charge under Section 506 of the IPC is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

                   (vi) that the photocopy of the so-called marriage certificate issued by Nag Shankar Devalaya, as submitted by the complainant (respondent No. 2), does not bear any official seal or signature of the competent authority. The said document on the face of it appears to be fabricated and cannot be treated as a genuine certificate of marriage and as such, in absence of any valid proof of marriage between the petitioner and Bornali Rongpi, the very foundation of the complaint is false and baseless and therefore, the impugned order of framing of charge under Section 494/506 of the IPC is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

                   (vii) that the petitioner has already filed a divorce petition, being Matrimonial (D) Case No. 91/2022, before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Nagaon, seeking dissolution of marriage with the complainant (respondent No. 2) and the said case is presently pending for disposal and as such, filing of PR Case No. 2154/2021, by the complainant (respondent No. 2) is nothing but a deliberate attempt to harass and pressurize the petitioner and that the complainant (respondent No. 2) had gone to the extent of producing false and fabricated documents, including the so-called marriage certificate, only to misuse the process of law and cause mental as well as social suffering to the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order of framing of charge under Section 494/ 506 of the IPC is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

                   (viii) that the learned trial court, without proper application of mind, had mechanically passed the impugned order of framing of charge, under Section 494/506 of the IPC, solely on the basis of a document alleging that a marriage registration deed took place between the petitioner and Bornali Rongpi, on 06.05.2019. The said document itself is doubtful and no one has verified it with the competent authority or witness and as such, reliance on such a document, without proper proof, is erroneous and contrary to law and therefore, the impugned order of framing of charge on the basis of such material is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

                   (ix) that the allegation of second marriage, between the petitioner and Bornali Rongpi, is absolutely false, baseless and fabricated. No such marriage ever took place in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and no essential ceremonies of a valid Hindu marriage were ever performed. On such count, the entire story of second marriage has falsely been created by the complainant (respondent No. 2) only to malign the reputation of the petitioner and to misuse the process of law and therefore, the continuation of the proceeding based on such false and unsubstantiated allegations is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

Submissions:-

5. Mr. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the learned trial court had framed charges against the petitioner, under Section 494/506 of the IPC, without there being any prima-facie case against him.

                   5.1. Mr. Kataki further submits that the IO did not visit the Nag Sankar Devalaya, situated at Biswanath Chariali, to ascertain as to whether the alleged marriage between the petitioner and Barnali Rongpi was solemnized or not and whether such marriage would amount to a valid marriage in the eye of law.

                   5.2. Mr. Kataki also submits that no evidence was collected by the IO. The IO had seized only the photo copy of the marriage certificate produced by the complainant before him and that the same fails to disclose a prima-facie case, under Section 494 of the IPC and therefore, Mr. Kataki has contended to set aside the entire proceeding and the impugned order, dated 14.08.2025, framing of charges against the present petitioner.

                   5.3. In support of his submission, Mr. Kataki has referred to a decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Smti. Priya Bala Ghosh vs. Suresh Chandra Ghosh, reported in (1971) 1 SCC 864.

6. Per-contra, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that though some lapses are there, on the part of the IO, in investigating the case, there appears to be a prima-facie case against the petitioner, under Section 494/506 of the IPC and that the materials collected during the course of the investigation by the IO are sufficient to frame charges. Under such circumstances, Mr. Borthakur has contended to dismiss this petition.

7. Ms. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, submits that the name of Barnali Rongpi, as the wife of the present petitioner, is reflected in the voter-list. Ms. Hussain further submits that the present petitioner and Barnali Rongpi were blessed with one child and in the birth certificate of the child, the name of the present petitioner is mentioned as father of the child and name of the mother of the child is reflected as Barnali Rongpi.

                   7.1. Ms. Hussain also submits that there are sufficient materials against the present petitioner and as such, the learned trial court has rightly framed the charges against the petitioner under Section 494/506 of the IPC and therefore, she has contended to dismiss this petition.

Consideration of this Court:-

8. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and has also perused the impugned order dated 14.08.2025, passed by the learned trial court, in PR Case No. 2154/2021.

9. The basic facts of this case are not in dispute. The learned trial court had framed charges against the petitioner under Section 494/506 of the IPC, having found a prima-facie case against him, after hearing submissions of both the parties and relying upon some decisions of Hon‟ble Supreme Court.

10. It is to be noted here that with respect to the framing of charge, the law is well settled in a catena of decisions. Notably, amongst others in the case of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and Another, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398, wherein Hon‟ble Supreme Court has laid down following propositions:-

                   “(i) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused.

                   (ii) The Trial Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution.

                   (iii) The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the Police or the documents produced before the Court.

                   (iv) If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, “cannot show that the accused committed offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial”.

                   (v) It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving rise to the grave suspicion.

                   (vi) The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons.

                   (vii) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true.

                   (viii) There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to discharge the accused.”

                   10.1. Further, in the case of Sajjan Kumar vs. State Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368, wherein Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court can allow Trial Court to proceed and that evaluation of evidence including evidentiary value of witness is not permissible at the stage of consideration of charge.

                   10.2. Again in the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4, Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

                   (i) The Judge must take the material produced by the prosecution (which indicates oral statements and documents) at face value, without cross-examination, and assume everything in favor of the prosecution.

                   (ii) If, even on that basis, no offence is made out, the accused is entitled to discharge.

                   (iii) The Trial Judge is not a mere post office to frame a charge at the instance of the prosecution; he must sift the evidence to determine whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding.

                   (iv) If two views are possible and one view gives rise to suspicion as opposed to grave suspicion, the Judge may discharge the accused.

                   (v) If the evidence the prosecution proposes to adduce, even if fully accepted before being challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by defense evidence, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, there is no sufficient ground for trial. The defense of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage of discharge under Section 227.

                   (vi) The expression "record of the case" refers to the documents and articles produced by the prosecution.

                   (vii) The accused cannot rely on his own material to seek discharge.

                   (viii) Grave suspicion based on prosecution material is sufficient to frame a charge and proceed to trial.

11. It is to be noted here that in the impugned order dated 14.08.2026, the learned trial court has observed as under:-

                   “After considering the submissions and after perusal of the case record, it is seen from the copy of document that a marriage registration did take place between the accused and one Bornali Rongpi allegedly on 06.05.2019. Prima- facie at this stage sufficient materials are found against the accused person under Section 494 IPC and there are also material under Section 506 of IPC against the accused. Accordingly, the accused is alleged for commission of an offence under Section 494/506 of IPC and this Court is competent to try the above mentioned offence and the same can be adequately punished by this Court. The charge under Section 494/506 of IPC are framed in writing in different sheet and tagged with the case record, read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.”

                   11.1. Thus, it appears that the learned trial court had considered the documents as well as the marriage certificate, which show registration of marriage between the petitioner and one Barnali Rongpi on 06.05.2019.

12. It is a fact that the IO had neither seized the original document nor examined any of the witnesses from the temple to ascertain as to whether the alleged marriage was solemnized or not.

13. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, in her additional affidavit, has taken a categorical stand that in the voter-list of Barnali Rongpi, her name is shown as wife of the present petitioner and that they were blessed with one child and in the birth certificate of the said child, the name of the present petitioner is shown as father and name of Barnali Rongpi is shown as mother.

14. It is, however, a fact that the voter-list and also the birth certificate were not seized by the Investigating Officer and therefore, not placed before the learned trial court at the time of framing of charges. Even then, the said documents prima-facie demonstrate the marriage between the petitioner and Barnali Rongpi on 06.05.2019. The prosecution side cannot be denied the opportunity to bring on record the said documents during trial with the permission of the court. In this regard the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. R.S. Pai, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 82, has clarified that Section 173(5) is directory, not mandatory. If relevant documents were omitted by mistake by the IO, the prosecution may produce them later with the permission of the court.

15. Though Mr. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whether the marriage was solemnized in the manner prescribed by the law or not, it is a subject matter and the same can be decided only after taking evidence.

16. Though no witness of solemnization of marriage has been examined, yet, if necessary, during the course of trial, witness can be called for as court witness by the learned trial court and also call for the original documents to ascertain the same. In that view of the matter and also in view of the ratio laid down in the cases discussed herein above, it cannot be said that the impugned order of framing of charges, passed by the learned trial court, dated 14.08.2025, suffers from any infirmity or illegality, requiring any interference of this Court.

17. This Court has gone through the decision relied upon by Mr. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner and finds that the proposition laid down in the said case was not considered at the time of framing of charges, but at the end of the trial while deciding the guilt of the accused.

18. In the result, I find no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

19. Interim order, passed earlier, if any, stands vacated.