IMPORTANT POINT
At the stage of framing of charge, the court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of respondent - State. With the consent of learned advocates for the parties, the Revision Application is taken up for final hearing.

2. By way of present Revision Applications under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners – original accused have prayed to quash and set aside order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patan below Exh.16 in Sessions Case No.99 of 2021 and Sessions Case No.46 of 2022, whereby, the discharge application of the petitioners accused has been rejected.

2.2. Following relief are claimed in para 7 of the Revision Application:-

"(a) To allow this Revision Application.

(b) To call for the record and proceedings of Sessions Case No. 99 of 2021 and Sessions Case No. 46 of 2022 pending before the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Patan and further be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 20/10/2023 at Annexure-A passed below Exhibit- 16 rejecting the discharge application of the petitioners filed in connection with the Sessions Case No. 99 of 2021 and Sessions Case No. 46 of 2022 and be pleased to discharge the petitioners.

(c) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, to stay the further proceedings of the Sessions Case No.99 of 2021 and Sessions Case No. 46 of 2022 pending before the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Patan.

(d) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper."

3. Facts of the case are as under :-

3.1. The case of the prosecution is that on 02/05/2021, an F.I.R. being I-C.R. No. 11217026210431 of 2021 came to be registered with Patan Taluka Police Station, Patan for the offences punishable under sections 306, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with section 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition act against the petitioner. The F.I.R. has been filed by one Rameshbhai Amratbhai Rabari inter alia alleging that before 21 years the sister of the complainant namely Champaben got married with the petitioner no.1. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that out of the wedlock, the petitioner no.1 and the deceased are having two son namely Anant aged 19 years and Aaryan aged 13 years. That in the initial period of several years the deceased was treated well by her in-laws and after that the accused persons mentally used to harass the deceased by taunting and demanded dowry. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that deceased telephoned the complainant and told the complainant about harassment caused by in laws.

3.2. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that before three years, the complainant along with his five community persons have come to meet the accused persons and scolded the accused persons and at that time an assurance was given that the deceased will not be harassed by the in-laws. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that in spite of the assurance given by the in-laws, the deceased was mentally and physically harassed by the in-laws by demanding dowry so the in-laws can pay the debt. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that when the deceased was coming at her parental home, the deceased informed the complainant that the petitioner no.2 said to the deceased that if the deceased will not bring money then she will be thrown out from the house. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that on the date of incident, at about 1 p.m. in the noon, the complainant was informed by one Rajeshbhai that the deceased was brought to Dharpur Civil Hospital in burning condition, therefore, the complainant with his relative reached at Dharpur Civil Hospital where the deceased was admitted in emergency ward and about 5:30 p.m. in the evening, the deceased died. Hence, impugned FIR is registered.

3.3. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred application for discharge under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court. That the said discharge application has been rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 20.10.2023. Hence, present Revision Application is preferred.

4.