JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Misra, the petitioner appearing in person. I have also heard Mr. M.K. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State of Assam i.e. the respondent No 1. Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent No. 2. 2. This criminal petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 29-09-2016 passed in connection with G.R. Case No. 2568/2011 whereby, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati had framed charge against the petitioner under Section 498A of the IPC. 3. The petitioner has declined the offer made by this court to appoint a legal-aid-counsel so as to present his case. Therefore, he has been heard in-person. 4. It appears from the records that the respondent No. 2, who is the wife of the petitioner, had lodged an FIR dated 26-03-2011 alleging torture and demand for dowry against the petitioner and his four other family members. Based on the FIR dated 26-03-2011, All Women P.S. Case No. 37/2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2568/2011 was registered under Section 498A of the IPC and the police had investigated the matter. On completion of investigation, police had filed charge-sheet against the petitioner, but the other accused were sent up for trial due to want of evidence. The charge-sheet was submitted by the police on 06-06-2012. Copy of the charge-sheet along with the accompanying documents were furnished to the petitioner but since then, the proceeding had to be adjourned on a number of occasions on the request of the petitioner. Finally, the learned Magistrate had passed the impugned order dated 29-09-2016 framing charge against the petitioner. 5. The petitioner, appearing in person, has argued that there is no material available for the learned Magistrate to frame charge against him. By relying upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Swapnil & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 567 , Mr. Misra has argued that the sole purpose behind lodging the FIR was to harass the petitioner and if the allegations are taken on the face value, then also, the same would not constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC. It is also the submission of Mr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 567 , Mr. Misra has argued that the sole purpose behind lodging the FIR was to harass the petitioner and if the allegations are taken on the face value, then also, the same would not constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC. It is also the submission of Mr. Misra that the allegations set out in the FIR or the charge-sheet do not constitute series of act on the part of the petitioner and therefore, charge under Section 498A IPC would not be maintainable. In support of his aforesaid argument Mr. Misra has placed reliance on another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Giridhar Shankar Tawade Vs. State of Maharashtra[Appeal(Crl.)No.463/1996]. A prayer has, therefore, been made to quash the impugned order dated 29-09-2016. 6. Mr. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submits that there are sufficient materials on record to frame charge against the petitioner and therefore, the present petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. Mr. Sarma has also invited the attention of this Court to the criminal petition filed by the petitioner on an earlier occasion assailing the FIR dated 26-03-2011 and the Police Case registered on the basis the FIR to submit that identical pleas raised by the petitioner in that proceeding was rejected by this court by a reasoned order which has attained finality in the eye of law. As such, the present petition is nothing but a dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioner to frustrate the proceeding. 7. Mr. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. Assam has also submitted that the criminal petition is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the materials available on record. Since the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Ors. reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4 , law is firmly settled that while framing charge, the Trial Court would only be concerned with the question of existence of a prima facie case. Since the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Ors. reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4 , law is firmly settled that while framing charge, the Trial Court would only be concerned with the question of existence of a prima facie case. Therefore, while framing charge, power under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. 9. A perusal of the impugned order dated 29-09-2015 goes to show that the learned Trial Court has elaborately dealt with the various objections raised by the petitioner before framing charge against him. That apart, the impugned order dated 29-09-2016 is also based on cogent reasons recorded after due appreciation of the materials available on record. After perusal of the copy of the FIR and the charge-sheet, I am also of the view that the impugned order dated 29-09-2015 does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 10. I also find from the records that the petitioner had earlier challenged the FIR dated 26-03-2011 before this court by filing Criminal Petition No. 81/2013 which was dismissed by the order dated 02-12-2013. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 02-12-2013 was also dismissed. Not only that, it further appears from the record that after the dismissal of the SLP, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition invoking the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which was also dismissed. Even the curative petition filed by the petitioner was rejected. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner had once again approached this court by filing Criminal Petition No. 170/2016 challenging the FIR dated 26-03-2011 which was also dismissed by this court by the judgment and order dated 16-09-2016. Un-deterred by the series of dismissal of his petitions challenging the FIR dated 26-03-2011, the petitioner has once again approached this court for the third time by filing the present petition. Be that as it may, after a careful analysis of the allegations made in the FIR dated 26-03-2011 and the materials available in the charge-sheet, I am of the considered opinion that a prima facie case has been made out for framing charge against the petitioner. Be that as it may, after a careful analysis of the allegations made in the FIR dated 26-03-2011 and the materials available in the charge-sheet, I am of the considered opinion that a prima facie case has been made out for framing charge against the petitioner. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the petitioner would be of no assistance to him in the facts and circumstances of this case. This criminal petition is, therefore, held to be devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Registry to send back the LCR expeditiously.