The court underscored that at the discharge application stage, the focus is on whether sufficient grounds exist for trial based on the FIR and investigation results, not on evidence appreciation.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of the State, learned A.P.P. and also on behalf of O.P.No. 2, learned Counsel are present.

2. The instant Cr. Revision was initially preferred against the order dated 24.03.2020 taking cognizance on the charge-sheet by the concerned court. Subsequently I.A.No. 325 of 2023 was filed on behalf of petitioner wherein the prayer was amended seeking to set aside the order passed by the court-below while rejecting the discharge application of the petitioner vide order dated 19.12.2022 in G.R. Case No. 1130 of 2019.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged on 15.10.2019 against the four named accused including the petitioner making allegations in regard to Section 4 98-A of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. After this F.I.R. the investigation was concluded and the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner who is the husband of the victim. Indeed, this F.I.R. was the counter blast of the legal proceedings which were initiated on behalf of the petitioner much before the lodging of the F.I.R. and contended that prior to lodging this F.I.R. the complaint was filed on behalf of the petitioner Md. Imran against Syed Md. Salimuddin, Syed Azaz Ahmad, Syed Md. Abdulla, Md. Jawed Akhtar and Sajid Akhtar in regard to the occurrence on 23.09.2019 for the offence under Sections 147 , 324, 379, 384,387,420,427, 506/34 of I.P.C.

5. It is also further submitted that on behalf of the petitioner an application was also moved under Section 39 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro which was registered MCA No. 1981 of 2019 against the nine accused persons as a safeguard that he may be implicated in false and fabricated case. This application was moved much before the lodging of the F.I.R. and was registered by the court concerned on 17.06.2019. The petitioner has also given a notice through his Advocate Mr. S.N.Pandey to his wife Gajala Praveen for restitution of conjugal right. This notice was issued on 17.09.2019 it was also much before the lodging of the F.I.R. On the complaint of the petitioner subsequently the court concerned also summoned the accused persons under Sections 323,379,386, 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. after an enquiry under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. The order dated 14.02.2020 is also Annexure of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner.

6. It is also further submitted that when the petitioner did not come to the matrimonial house for restitution of conjugal right the petitioner had given Talaq to his wife. Copy of the same is also annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner-husband which is in Urdu and Hindi translate is also annexed therewith. This Hukme Talaq Nama is also dated 01.10.2019 much before the date of occurrence shown in the F.I.R. and prior to date of lodging of the F.I.R. and contended that in view of the above from all these documentary evidence the allegations made against the petitioner in the F.I.R. are belied and contended that the application of the discharge which was rejected by the court-below has not taken into consideration all these documentary evidence and contended to set aside the impugned order and to allow this Cr. Revision.

7. Per contra the learned Counsel for the O.P.No. 2 and learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State opposed the contentions made by the learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and contended that t