R.D. Kothari, J.

The applicant seeks amendment in the application.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Budhbhatti for the applicant and respondent no. 2 - party-in-person.

3. The learned advocate for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to the proposed draft amendment, wherein grounds (I), (J), (K) & (L) are mentioned and additional relief (11)(G) is mentioned.

4. Opposing the proposed draft amendment respondent no. 2 - party -in-person has drawn attention of the Court to the order passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 478 of 2014 on 05.09.2014. Further, it was submitted that the draft amendment is not proper, more particularly, the relief clause wherein the applicant's prayer gives impression that the charges against all are to be quashed. At this stage, and more particularly, in case wherein besides the present applicant, there are other accused also, such prayer cannot be granted.

5. In reply, the learned advocate for the applicant submits that his prayer is restricted for quashing of the charges and proceedings in respect of the applicant only.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicant and respondent no. 2 - party-in-person and on perusing the draft amendment, the proposed amendment is allowed. The applicant to carry out the amendment accordingly.

6.1. The applicant has carried out the amendment. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

7. The applicant in the present revision application claims to be an advocate being aggrieved by the common order passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural below Exhibit-12 and Exhibit-28 in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2013 on 14.08.2014 has filed the present revision application. By the above referred order, the learned trial Court was pleased to dismiss the applicants discharge application.

8. The few relevant facts are as under.

9. A complaint being C.R. No. I-363 of 2001 was filed at Satellite Police Station for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code. The said complaint was filed by the victim. It was submitted at the time of hearing that in the said complaint the police after inquiry has filed "B" Summary Report. That has led respondent no. 2 - party-in-person and sole accused in that complaint, to file criminal case no. 5361 of 2005 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ahmedabad, for offences under Sections 389, 511, 211, 120-B and 37 of the Indian Penal Code. It was submitted that initially process was not issued against the present applicant and, therefore, respondent no. 2 - party-in-person moved the Sessions Court and on being order passed by the Sessions Court, process was issued against the present applicant also. Thereafter, the present applicant had moved this Court to quash the criminal proceedings against her. Later on, the said proceedings came to be withdrawn with a liberty to file discharge application. Accordingly, the applicant had filed discharge application and the same came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Court. Hence, the present revision application.

10. Heard learned advocate Mr. Budhbhatti for the applicant and respondent no. 2 - party-in-person.

11. Learned advocate Mr. Budhbhatti for the applicant has submitted that on going through the complaint it would appear that no allegations are made against the present applicant and, therefore, there is no prima facie case against the present applicant. That being so, the learned trial Court has committed serious error of law and fact in rejecting the discharge application of the applicant. It was submitted that the order of the trial Court cannot be said to be proper, legal or correct and hence, the present application should be dismissed.

12. As against that respondent no. 2 has drawn attention of the Court to the order under challenge. Referring to the said order, it was pointed out that earlier the present applicant has filed discharge application before the Chief Jud