Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010267322025 2026:GAU-AS:2393 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./509/2025 MANJIL PEGU S/O SRI ATUL PEGU,R/O KARIATI GAON, P.S BOKAKHAT,DISTRICT - GOLAGHAT, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:KANGKAJ BORA S/O SRI DEBEN BORA R/O WARD NO.9 P.S BOKAKHAT DISTRICT GOLAGHAT ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S H SIKDAR, MS N J BEGUM,MR. A DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 18-02-2026 Heard Mr. S. H. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 438 BNSS, 2203 against the impugned order dated 16.10.2025, passed by the learned SDJM (M), Bokakhat in PRC Case No. 83/2025, whereby the charge under Sections 316(5)/318(4) of BNS was framed against the petitioner. 3. The basic contention of the petitioner in this petition is that the charge which has been framed by the learned Trial Court on 16.10.2025 is a defective one and submitted that both the charges cannot attracted against one person at the same time as Section 316 is of criminal breach of trust and on the other hand Section 318 is of cheating. Accordingly, he submitted that if there is any allegation of misappropriation of money it cannot attract both the Sections together as Section 316(2)/318(2) BNS under which Sections charges has been framed against the present petitioner. Accordingly, he submitted that the charges which has been framed is a defective one for framing of such defective charge there may be abuse of process of the Court and in that case the petitioner will also be prejudiced. Hence, this petition, praying for setting aside and quashing the order dated 16.10.2025 under which the charges against the present petitioner was framed by the learned Trial Court under Sections 316(5)/318(4) BNS. 4. Mr. Lahkar, learned Addl. PP submitted that even if there is defect in Page No.# 3/4 framing of charge that cannot cause any prejudice to the petitioner and he will get ample opportunity to contest the case and that apart he may also file petition for modification/alteration of charge before the learned Trial Court. 5. Section 510 of BNSS speaks as under:- “Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge (1) No finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. (2) If the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, is of opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned, it may,- (a) in the case of an omission to frame a charge, order that a charge be framed, and that the trial be recommenced from the point immediately after the framing of the charge; (b) in the case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to be had upon a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit: Provided that if the Court is of opinion that the facts of the case are such that no valid charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts proved, it shall quash the conviction.” 6. In view of above, Mr. Lahkar, learned APP submitted that the present petition may be disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to move an application before the learned Trial Court. 7. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the order dated 16.10.2025, passed by the learned SDJM (M), Bokakhat in PRC Case No. 83/2025, whereby the charges were framed against the present petitioner under Sections 316(5)/318(4) BNS. 8. Without perusal of the other materials of the record, this Court is not in a position as to which section would attract against the present petitioner, however, there may be some defect in framing the charges against the petitioner as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Page No.# 4/4 offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot run together. But this Court cannot direct the learned Trial Court to frame charge under any particular Section without perusal of the record and at the same time, it is also seen that there may not be any prejudice caused to the petitioner even if there is any defect in framing of charge. 9. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move an application before the learned Trial Court with a prayer for modification/alteration of the charge framed against the present petitioner, which may be considered by the learned Trial Court, if it finds necessary. 10. With the above observation and direction, this criminal revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant