At the time of framing charges, the court is not required to analyze the probative value of evidence and materials, but only to draw a presumptive opinion as to the probability of the commission of the offence by the accused.

JUDGMENT

Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - By this criminal petition, the extra ordinary power under Section 482 CrPC is sought to. be invoked for quashing the order dated 14.09.20216 passed in GR Case No. 9590/2011, whereby, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M) framed charges against the petitioner under Section 448/380 IPC and also to quash the entire proceeding in the aforesaid criminal case.

2. Learned counsel Mr. B.M. Choudhury appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D.K. Kothari for the respondent No. 2 as well as Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. for the respondent No. 1 were heard.

3. The brief facts of the case, which may be relevant for disposal of this criminal petition are that the respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR on 02.10.2011 against the present petitioner alleging interalia, that the petitioner committed domestic violence on the respondent No. 2, for which, she had to file criminal cases including proceeding under Protection of women against Domestic Violence Act (in short D.V. Act), being MC No. 122m/2010. In the proceeding under DV Act, learned Magistrate passed various prohibitory orders including restraining the petitioner to perpetrate domestic violence against the respondent No. 2 from dispossessing the respondent No. 2 from the share household, entering into the portion of the shared household in possession of the respondent No. 2 etc. and in violation of the said order, the petitioner trespassed into the house of the respondent No. 2 and had taken away various articles including her personal diary, ornaments, cash amount etc. by breaking the almira. On the basis of the said FIR, police registered Latasil P.S. Case No. 197/2011 under Section 453/380 IPC and after completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the petitioner under Section 448/380 IPC. On the basis of the charge sheet filed by police, learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and framed charges against the petitioner under Section 380/448 IPC by the order impugned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.M. Choudhury, submitted that the allegations made in the FIR were false and concocted and the object of the FIR was only to wreak vengeance on the petitioner. Mr. Choudhury further contended that various cases have been filed by the respondent No. 2 including proceeding under D.V. Act, only to harass the petitioner. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there was no specific date etc. as to the commission of offence and the FIR was lodged only when the petitioner produced photocopies of some pages of the personal diary of the respondent No. 2 in the proceeding under the D.V. Act. It is also contended that the FIR was lodged after about 45 days. Learned counsel further contended that during investigation, police did not collect any cogent evidence against the petitioner, which could lead to his conviction and as such, learned Magistrate ought not to have framed charge. In support of his submission, Mr. Choudhury placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajanlal & Ors, (1992) Supp1 SCC 335.

5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that for the purpose of framing charge, court is not required to come to a finding as to whether the accusation or material brought on record would ultimately lead to conviction of the accused. A strong suspicion as regards the possibility of the accused being involved in the commission of the offence is sufficient for framing charge. It is also contended that court cannot analyze the probative value of the evidence and materials at the time of framing charge. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the materials brought on record including the allegations made in the FIR was sufficient to draw a presumptive opinion as to the probability of committing the offence and as such, the proceeding cannot be quashed at this stage on the ground, that the allegations made are false or concocted.

6. Section 239 &