Arun Chandra Upadhyay, J.

1. By this application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the complainant/petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.12.2011 (passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate(S) No. 2, Kamrup at Guwahati, in C.R. Case No. 2306/2009, whereby the prayer of the petitioner to frame charge against the accused/respondents, was rejected under Section 377 of the IPC. I have heard Mr. A.K. Buhyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.M. Bora, learned counsel representing the private Respondent No. 3 as well as Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. PP for the State.

2. The facts leading to filing this petition, in brief, may be stated as follows:

The petitioner as complainant, instituted a complaint case against the accused respondent in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati alleging inter alia that in pursuance of FIR lodged by the complainant/petitioner before the Officer-in-Charge, Bharalumukh police station on 12.3.08, regarding missing of his minor daughter, police made a GD Entry No. 505 dated 13.3.08, and launched investigation. During the course of investigation, police brought two minor victim girls to the police station, and accordingly interrogated them. During interrogation, the accused-respondent No. 3 along with some police personnel forcibly undressed the complainant's minor daughter and her friend (another minor girl). It is also alleged by the complainant/petitioner that the accused/respondent used abusive and vulgar languages to the victim girls and on the top of it, the accused respondent No. 3 inserted a stick inside the vagina of the complainant/petitioner's minor daughter and thus apart from outraging her modesty committed unnatural offence on the person of a minor.

3. The complaint petition filed by the complainant/petitioner, was registered as C.R. Case No. 2906/2009, in the Court of learned CJM, Kamrup. The case was transferred to the Court of learned SDJM(S), Kamrup for disposal. The learned trial Court after recording the initial deposition of the complainant, examined witnesses, as per provisions of Section 202 of CrPC and thus took cognizance of the offence under Section 323/354/377/34 of IPC against the accused-respondent No. 3.

4. After taking cognizance of the offence, accused/respondent was summoned to appear before the trial Court. Consequently, the accused-respondent entered appearance before the learned trial Court On appearance of the accused-respondent, learned trial Court recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses before charge and accordingly took up the matter for consideration of charge. Learned trial Court, on consideration of the material on record, finding sufficient materials against the accused-respondent under Section 323/354 of IPC, explained the particulars of offence to the accused- respondent, to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. However, while considering framing of charge against the accused-respondent, the learned trial Court observed in the impugned order that there are no materials to frame charge under Section 377 of IPC against the accused-respondent. The complainant petitioner having been highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of the learned trial Court, for not framing charge under Section 377 of IPC, against the accused person, has preferred the present criminal petition, seeking direction from this Court, for framing charge under Section 377 of IPC, against the accused-respondent, in addition to the above charges, on the basis of the materials on record.

6. Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that when a stick is inserted in the private parts of a minor girl, it would amount to an unnatural offence, which would attract the ingredients of offence under Section 377 of IPC and therefore, non-framing of charge under Section 377 of IPC is bad in law. Learned counsel submits that insertion of a stick in the private parts of the minor girl, prima facie, was