JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the accused/petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. By filing this application u/s 482 Cr.PC, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding being PRC case no. 2154/2021, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon, including the impugned FIR and charge-sheet.

3. In the instant petition, the petitioner put to challenge the legality and validity of registration of Nagaon, Sadar PS case No. 1374/2019 (PRC Case no. 2154/2021) u/s 494/294/506/447 IPC. Initially, the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint case before the learned SDJM(S) Nagaon vide CR case No. 424/2019, alleging that the petitioner, who is the husband of the complainant/opposite party No. 2, without dissolution of their marriage had contracted another marriage. The learned SDJM, Nagaon invoked the provision of section 156(3) Cr.P.C and vide impugned order dated 14/05/2019, directed the OC, Nagaon PS to register a case and investigate the same and submit report. Consequently, on receipt of the same complaint petition, the OC, Nagaon P.S registered a case vide Nagaon P.S case no. 1374/2019 u/s 494/294/506/447 IPC. Accordingly, after submission of charge sheet, the case was proceeded as PRC case no. 2154/2021 before the learned CJM, Nagaon.

4. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint case being CR case No. 424/2019 was not supported by any affidavit as required for invoking the benefit of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Further, the complainant has not averred in her complaint that she has ever approached the police for registering a case in connection with the offences as alleged in the complaint before filing of such complaint petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C provides every offence relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, is required to be given to the officer-in-charge of a police station having jurisdiction first. If the OC of the police station refuses to record the information, then the aggrieved person can send the substance of such offence in writing and by post to the Superintendant of police concerned as provided u/s 154(3) of Cr.PC. In the instant case, the complaint/opposite party No. 2 is totally silent in respect of lodging of any FIR or having approached the SP, concerned prior to filing of her complaint petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of UP and others, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287, has held that the remedy available u/s 156 (3) of Cr.P.C is not of routine nature and the learned Magistrate while exercising the power u/s 156(3) has to apply the judicious mind. It was also held that prior to seeking remedy u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C, one is to invoke the provision of section 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on another case law, Tarun Dev Sharma vs. State of Assam, reported in (2015) 4 GLT 413. In the said case also, it was held that the complainant, before invoking the Magistrate’s power u/ s 156(3) of Cr.P.C, has to take steps u/s 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. It was also held that the learned Magistrate before passing an order u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C has to ascertain as to whether the complainant has approached the authorities u/s 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C.

8. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, as the learned Magistrate did not follow the procedure before passing an order u/s 156 (3), hence, the impugned order being registration of Nagaon PS case No. 1374/2019, corresponding to PRC case No. 2154/2021 u/s 494/294/506/447 IPC is liable to be set aside and quashed.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that section 156(3) of the code, operates at pre-cognizance stage of the complaint which clarifies that who is empo