1. Heard Mr. A.M. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.M. Mojumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and also Mr. J. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioner herein is a Superintendent of Police, Dhubri District and the respondent No. 2 is a Deputy Superintendent of Excise at Gohpur, Sonitpur and prior to that she was working at Margherita. Necessary facts in brief is that the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint case being CR Case No. 263/2016 before the Court of the learned CJM, Dhubri raising certain allegations that on 19.12.2015, while she along with her driver and advocate come to Dhubri to cause personal service of summon and document in connection with TS No. 70/15 pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Dibrugarh upon the petitioner, he refused to accept the notice. And as her advocate who accompanied her informed about the refusal of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 herself along with her driver went to the officer chamber of the petitioner to ask about the same then she was asked by the petitioner to come to his residence in the evening so that he can received the document in presence of his lawyer. Accordingly, when she arrived in the official residence of the petitioner, she was not responded but still, she awaited in front of his house till night about 10 p.m. The petitioner along with his wife and other police officials came out from his residence and they along with lady constables misbehaved the respondent and she was assaulted by the officials and showing threat at gun point, forcefully put her in a vehicle and by filing a false FIR against her, she was illegally detained in the Dhubri Police Station till next day. On the basis of the said complaint, the learned Addl. CJM to whom the case was endorsed after making an enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. took the cognizance u/s 120B 166/294/352/354/357/509/34 IPC vide order, dated 28.04.2016.

3. Being highly aggrieved with the impugned order of the learned Addl. CJM the present petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the court of the Sessions Judge, Dhubri bring Criminal Rev. 36/2016 and the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order, dated 05.09.2016. Challenging the aforesaid order, dated 05.09.2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri upholding the impugned order of taking cognizance by the learned Trial Court, the present petition has been preferred under Section 482 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C.

4. The basic contention that has been raised in the present petition is that the learned Trial Court committed error in taking cognizance of the offence without following the proper procedure of law as laid down u/s 202/204 Cr.P.C. It is stated that as the case was filed u/s 307 IPC which is exclusively triable by the Session Court, it was incumbent upon the learned Court to examine all the listed witnesses u/s 202 (2) Cr.P.C. but as the said procedure has not been followed by the Court and straight way issued the process against the accused person by taking cognizance, is bad in law and has cause prejudice to the accused petitioner. It is stated that it is not open to the learned Magistrate to drop the offence u/s 307 IPC and proceed for the trial of the accused for some other offences for which he has jurisdiction. Once the Magistrate directed the complainant to produce all his witnesses, the same Court has no power to rescind/recall/review the same on its own as defined u/s 362 Cr.P.C. Such error, if any, needs to be corrected by the higher judiciary. Thus the challenge that has been made in this petition is that once the court determined to enquire into the matter u/s 202 Cr.P.C., the Court cannot take cognizance u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and accordingly the impugned order taking cognizance is stated to be bad in law.

5. The order of the learned Trial Court of taking cognizance was challenged before the revisional Court which was also dismissed by hol