IMPORTANT POINT
At the stage of framing of charge, the court must prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, without appreciating evidence for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. With the consent of learned advocates for both the sides, both the Revision Applications are taken up for final hearing analogously.

2. By way of present Revision Applications under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C., the original accused nos.2 and 3 have prayed to quash and set aside order dated 02.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) below Exh.4 in Sessions Case No.265 of 2021.

3. Facts of the case are as under :-

3.1. Applicants - accused are father in law and mother in law of the complainant. Marriage of elder son of the applicants and complainant was solemnized on 24.06.2012. After 15 days of marriage i.e. on 13.07.2012 complainant deserted her matrimonial home by saying that she was never interested to marry and was forced by her parents to get marries. It is stated that out of wedlock, son Atharva was born on 30.09.2013. The applicants submit that they were being threatened by the complainant and her father of dire consequences and roping them in serious offence, whenever they tried to resolve the issue. Thereafter, the son of the applicants filed application seeking divorce before the Family Court, Pratapgarh (UP), wherein despite notice being served to complainant, she did not appear, pursuant to which ex-parte divorce decree was passed on 29.07.2015. Thereafter, the complainant did not challenge the said decree for more than one year and in the month of November, 2016 said decree was challenged only when the complainant came to know that original accused got married on 22.02.2016. Thereafter, with a view to harass the applicants, the complainant lodged FIR at Sola Police Station, Ahmedabad being I-C.R.No.214 of 2016, wherein the applicant along with other accused were granted anticipatory bail. Thereafter IO filed charge-sheet in the case which got culminated into Sessions Case No.265 of 2021. The other co-accused approached this Hon'ble Court for quashing the impugned FIR being Cr.M.A.No.23988 of 2017 and Cr.M.A.No.22118 of 2017. Said applications were allowed by this Court on 21.06.2019. The applicants also preferred quashing the FIR being Cr.M.A.No.2521 of 2022, wherein this Court has issued notice and in the meantime, also filed discharge application before the learned Trial Court. Said discharge application came to be rejected vide order dated 02.11.2023. Hence, both the Revision Applications.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that at earlier point of time, discharge application was moved before the learned Trial Court, which was denied without proper consideration and therefore, Criminal Revision Applications were preferred before this Court, whereupon, this Court vide order dated 25.09.2023 after referring the judgment of P.Vijayan v/s. State of Kerala [(2010) 2 SCC 135] remanded the matter to the learned Trial for deciding discharge application afresh. Subsequent thereto, learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 02.11.2023 decided the discharge application afresh and partly allowed in favour of the petitioners discharging the accused no.2 under section 354(A)(i) and (ii) of the IPC but ordered to frame charge for the offence under sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sections 307,323,406, 498(A), 506(2) read with section 114 of IPC, thereby learned Trial Court has grossly erred. He would submit that there is delay in lodging FIR, which is not considered by the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that allegations to attempt to murder was made 2 years prior to registration of FIR, yet same has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. It is highly improbable case. It is submitted that crucial evidence are missing in the case. There is no attempt to murder on the part of the petitioners and therefore, offence under section 307 of IPC is not attracted nor other offences are attracted. It is submitted that learned Trial Court has committed serious error while partly allowing the discharge application. It i