JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam (Respondent No.2) as well as Mr. D. Talukdar, the learned counsel representing the Respondent No.1. 2. This is an application under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) challenging the judgment and order dated 16.05.2011 passed by the learned st C Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Rangia (Kamrup), in Case No.151 /2007 affirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Rangia, Kamrup in Criminal Appeal No.37/2011. 3. The petitioner had married the respondent on 14.02.1996. The couple blessed with a son. For want of dowry, the respondent was physically harassed by the petitioner. Therefore, she had lodged an FIR before police. The G.R. Case No.229/2004 came into existence accordingly. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rangia convicted the petitioner under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. 4. The respondent had to leave her matrimonial house because of the conduct of the petitioner and his family members. Thereafter, the petitioner again married Minu Deka on 22.02.04. Therefore, the respondent filed a complaint case, being Case C No.151 /2007. In this case, the trial court convicted the petitioner under Sections 494 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulations. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the present revision petition has been filed. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 7. In State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “ 14. The power and jurisdiction of the Higher Court under Section 397 CrPC which vests the court with the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court is for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in such proceedings. 15. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in such proceedings. 15. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] , where scope of Section 397 has been considered and succinctly explained as under : (SCC p. 475, paras 12-13) “12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well- founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. 13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under CrPC.” 16. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under CrPC.” 16. This Court in the aforesaid judgment in Amit Kapoor case [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] has also laid down principles to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 particularly in the context of prayer for quashing of charge framed under Section 228CrPC is sought for as under : (Amit Kapoor case [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] , SCC pp. 482-83, para 27) “27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be: 27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. *** 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. *** 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. 17. The revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating the evidence by finding out inconsistency in the statement of witnesses and it is not legally permissible. The High Courts ought to be cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge.” 8. Coming back to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that being a revisional court, unlike an appellate court, this Court is not supposed to reappreciate the evidence available in the record. Being a revision court, this Court is of the opinion that no jurisdictional errors have been committed by the trial court as well as the appellate court. Therefore, this revision petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly. Send back the LCR.