JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. The present application has been filed under Section 482 CrPC praying for quashing and setting aside the proceedings in G.R.No.4456/2012 arising out of Basistha Police Station Case No.276/2012 U/S 493/417 IPC. 2. The case in brief is that on 26.4.2012 the opposite party no.2 instituted a complaint U/S 156 (3) CrPC before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati alleging that the accused petitioner was introduced with the opposite party no.2 in the month of March, 2010 at Guwahati and developed friendship with the complainant with promise to marry her. Later on, though the accused proposed to marry her but by assigning different reasons he postponed the formal and legal marriage. The accused also brought some legal papers in connection with the intended marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and obtained the complainant’s signature on the aforesaid paper. The accused petitioner also given a photo copy of the notice under the Special Marriage Act and also assured the complainant the legal marriage has been completed. In this connection a get together (reception) was held between the closed friends and as such the complainant was under bonafide impression that a marriage will be solemnized between them and she started to live with the accused as husband and wife since 20.6.2010 and out of the relation a baby boy was born on 12.4.2011. While continuing such relation for long period the complainant suddenly came to know that a complaint has been filed by one lady claiming herself as wife of the accused person with the allegation that the present complainant has kidnapped her husband/accused herein. Then on query made by the complainant the accused replied that he is a married man having his wife at Garo Hills Meghalaya and persuaded her not to be worried. As against the said complaint case lodged by his another wife of the accused against the complainant an Anticipatory Bail Petition ( AB No. 2320/11) was moved, wherein the accused made an affidavit that he had not been abducted by the complainant Ria Sangma and she is only his business partner. 3. As against the said complaint case lodged by his another wife of the accused against the complainant an Anticipatory Bail Petition ( AB No. 2320/11) was moved, wherein the accused made an affidavit that he had not been abducted by the complainant Ria Sangma and she is only his business partner. 3. Since after filing of the said complaint case in the month of September, 2011 the accused began to reside with his former wife, deserting the complainant and her baby for which she filed a complaint case before the Court which was forwarded to the Basistha Police Station and accordingly, Basistha Police Station Case No. 276/12 was registered U/S 493/417 IPC and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused petitioner under said Section of law and the learned trial Court has issued the summons and the accused petitioner appeared before the trial Court and in the meantime charge has been framed against the petitioner U/S 483 /417 IPC by order dated 11.9.2015. Now the accused petitioner has preferred the present petition challenging the aforesaid proceeding as well as taking congnizance by the learned trial Court. The petitioner narrated all details about the relation between the parties that the complainant/respondent was aware that the accused petitioner is a married man having two children so there is no question that he falsely represented himself as a bachelor. It has been assailed that the ingredient of the offence U/S 493 IPC cannot be made out against the accused/petitioner, as the respondent being an educated lady cannot accept any lawful marriage between them, without there being any formal marriage between them. That apart, it is assailed that no child born to them out of the so called wedlock and all false allegations have been made. Accordingly it has been submitted that there is bleak chance of conviction in the aforesaid case as the case has been filed maliciously, accordingly, it should be quashed and set aside. 4. On the next it is contended that a filing of case U/S 156(3) of CrPC and forwarding the same mechanically to the police by the learned Magistrate without recording any reason is bad in law. It has been contended that prior to filing of an application U/S 156(3) CrPC there has to be separate application U/S 154(1) and 154(3) of CrPC. It has been contended that prior to filing of an application U/S 156(3) CrPC there has to be separate application U/S 154(1) and 154(3) of CrPC. But as in the instant case, the same was not done and accordingly it has been submitted that entire proceeding of G.R.No.4456/2012 arising out of Basistha Police Station Case No.276/2012 U/S 493/417 IPC on the basis of complaint petition filed U/S 156(3) CrPC is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 5. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has urged before this Court that basically the aforesaid impugned G. R. proceeding is bad in law in view of violation of mandatory provision of Section 156 (3) CrPC and relied on a decision reported in 2015 (4) GLT 413. It has been contended that a Magistrate cannot forward such compliant petition for investigation without recording any reason. As has been reflected in this case, no any reason has been recorded prior to sending of this case for investigation. Further submission of the learned sr. counsel for the petitioners rests on the content of the complaint petition and it has been submitted that the allegations made in the complaint petition even if they are taken at their face value and accepted entirely do not constitute prima facie offence U/S 493/417 IPC. Further it has been contended that the aforesaid case has been filed with malicious intention only to harass the petitioner and to gain undue advantage and there bleak chance of conviction so the continuance of the aforesaid proceeding is nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the guideline given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported 1992 (sup 1) SCC 335. 6. Per contra the leaned counsel for the respondent no.2 has vehemently resist the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on each and every count. It has been submitted that there is no water to hold in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards the challenge to the provision of Section 156 (3) CrPC. 6. Per contra the leaned counsel for the respondent no.2 has vehemently resist the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on each and every count. It has been submitted that there is no water to hold in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards the challenge to the provision of Section 156 (3) CrPC. Pointing towards Section 154 (1) and 154 (3) as well as the provisions of Section 156(3) CrPC it has been submitted that Section 154 relates to the investigation as regards the congnizable offence, whereby the police is empowered to investigate the cognizable offence. On the other hand, Section 155(2) CrPC provides that no police officer shall investigate a non-congnizable offence without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case. Accordingly it has been submitted that the offence in the instant case being non-cognizable offence U/S 493/417 IPC the Court has the power to forward such complaint to police for investigation by virtue of Section 156 (3) CrPC. Thus there is no any illegality in the order so passed by the learned Magistrate for forwarding the case for investigation to police, as has been alleged by the petitioner. 7. As regards the other contentions raised by the petitioner as mentioned above regarding prima facie case etc. it has been countered by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is ample evidence on record in support of the case of the respondent and on the basis of which the learned Court has already framed the charge U/S 493/417 IPC and the challenge made by the petitioner about having no prima face case and no chance of conviction on the part of the petitioner is not sustainable at this stage as all pertains to factual aspect which is to prove by evidence only and there is no scope to interfere with the order of framing charge as well as continuance of criminal proceeding. 8. I have considered the rival submission of learned counsel for both the parties. Firstly, let us examine as to whether the learned Magistrate has committed any error in forwarding the case to the police. It is to be noted that the instant case relates to non cognizable offence and in view of the proviso Section 155(2) CrPC police is not empowered to investigate such offence unless permitted by the concerned Magistrate. Firstly, let us examine as to whether the learned Magistrate has committed any error in forwarding the case to the police. It is to be noted that the instant case relates to non cognizable offence and in view of the proviso Section 155(2) CrPC police is not empowered to investigate such offence unless permitted by the concerned Magistrate. The offence being non-congnizable one the respondent no.2 is not required to file FIR U/S 154 CrPC which relates to congnizable offence. So there remains nothing on the part of respondent no.2, to file application U/S 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC prior to filing of the complaint. The citation referred by the learned sr. counsel for the petitioner has a reference to a situation when the Magistrate has forwarded a complaint to police in regard to cognizable offence which is stated to be bad in law. But the matter in hand is different to that of the offence discussed in the aforesaid case and as such is not applicable to the present case. 9. The second crucial contention that has been raised by the learned sr. counsel for the petitioner relates to having no prima facie case against the petitioner to constitute an offence under the aforesaid section of law and there is bleak chance of conviction and that the case has been filed for personal gain. 10. I have gone through the complaint petition filed by the respondent no.2 on the basis of which charge has already been framed and also gone through the contention of the petitioner raised in this petition. It reflects that while challenging the aforesaid complaint as well as the charge, the petitioner herein has given his long detail of facts that there was no such relation between the parties as has been alleged in the complaint petition and the respondent no.2/complainant was well aware that the petitioner was a married person having two children and he used to extend helping hand to her solely on friendly relationship. The petitioner was informed by the respondent no. 2 that she was pregnant from her earlier friend and on humanitarian ground he provide shelter by allowing her to stay in his Flat but she taking advantage to the same continued to occupy his Flat and in the meantime she gave birth to a child and he provided monetary help to her. 2 that she was pregnant from her earlier friend and on humanitarian ground he provide shelter by allowing her to stay in his Flat but she taking advantage to the same continued to occupy his Flat and in the meantime she gave birth to a child and he provided monetary help to her. But he is not the father of the child and the present case has been filed falsely. 11. In comparison to the allegation made in the complaint petition and the contention made by the present petitioner it is obvious that all these allegations and counter allegations can be asserted/ proved only on the basis of proper evidence from both sides and falsity of plea for either side cannot be assessed at this stage. The matter of facts always needs to be proved by requisite evidence. Coming to the allegation raised by the respondent no.2 in the complaint petition it reflects that she has specifically stated that the present petitioner by giving a false representation that he is a bachelor maintained relation with her since 2010 and by showing some document regarding marriage to be solemnized followed by marriage reception the petitioner used to cohabit with her since 20.6.2010 in his Flat and out of such cohabitation she gave birth to a child on 12.4.2011 in the Protixa Hospital in Guwahati and to this effect birth certificate and discharge certificate was annexed. But after continuing such relation for further few months, the petitioner deserted the respondent no.2 in his Flat and thereafter whole incident taken place, leading to filing of the complaint by the respondent no.2. As against the case of the respondent petitioner has taken different plea which, of course is to be tested in the course of trial only. 12. From the allegation made by the respondent no.2 it can be seen that at least she has made out a prima facie case for proceeding U/S 417 IPC (even if the charge U/S 493 IPC may not be made out, which however, will be decided by the trial Court). It has been alleged by the respondent no.2 that the petitioner cohabited with her as husband and wife by suppressing his earlier marriage resulting to birth of a child and thereafter refused such relation, would prima facie make out a case U/S 417 IPC for proceeding. It has been alleged by the respondent no.2 that the petitioner cohabited with her as husband and wife by suppressing his earlier marriage resulting to birth of a child and thereafter refused such relation, would prima facie make out a case U/S 417 IPC for proceeding. The explanation to Section 415 IPC read as follows: (A) A dishonest concealment of fact is a deception within the meaning of this Section. 13. The scope and ambit of Section 482 CrPC to quash a proceeding has been described by the Hon’ble Apex Court and certain guidelines have been issued in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) is as follows: “102 . In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Whether the allegation in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Whether the allegation in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a congnizable offence justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclosed the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclosed the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a congnizable offence but constitute only a non-congnizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Code. 5. Where, the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious readers for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 14. Having regard to the nature of accusation made by the respondent side in the aforesaid complaint as has been discussed above, it cannot be held that the present case would cover within any of the guildelines as set forth in the Bhajan Lal Case (supra). In the present case, complaint was filed on 2012 and in the meantime charge-sheet has been filed & charge has also been framed & case is at evidence stage and petitioner has come forward to challenge the case only after framing charge and as has been discussed above, the respondent has a prima facie case for proceeding and it cannot found that the case has been instituted maliciously , as has been alleged by the petitioner. In view of all above, it is not found to be a fit case to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceeding. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.