Rajiv was summoned to appear for trial before the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Golaghat,…

The Magistrate must commit this exclusively Sessions-triable case under section 232 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly section 209 CrPC) after completing the applicable document-supply requirements of section 230 or section 231. Framing the trial charge belongs to the ensuing Sessions procedure, so it is not a prerequisite the committing Magistrate must perform.

Why not "the court will frame charge against him."? Framing the trial charge is not the committing Magistrate's function in this exclusively Sessions-triable case. The required step is commitment after supplying the applicable documents. Merely stating that the Magistrate will frame a charge assigns the Sessions trial function to the wrong stage and court.

Why not "the court will frame the charge and try him."? The stated offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, so the Judicial Magistrate cannot proceed to conduct its trial. Adding charge framing does not cure that jurisdictional problem. The Magistrate's proper role on these facts is completion of the statutory commitment procedure.

Why not "the court will commit him to the court of Sessions after framing charge against him."? Commitment is required, but this alternative incorrectly makes the Magistrate's framing of a trial charge precede it. The Sanhita calls for commitment following the applicable document-supply requirements. The Sessions court then considers the trial charge under its own procedure, rather than receiving a charge framed as proposed here.