GUWAHATI, India, July 19 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on June 18:

1. 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 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rangia (Kamrup), in Case No.151C /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 No.151C /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. 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)

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=LfKgAEL6K8Sqqfv6TysK%2BF%2FrcD%2B6HxDYZzL%2FPC0dENr3%2Fmyc3GUDQggGbGsdMd7n&caseno=Crl.Rev.P./139/2012&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010182152012&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.