Om Prakash-VII, J.

1. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists with the prayer to set-aside the order dated 20.10.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IInd, Shahjahanpur in case no. 308 of 2013 under Sections 406 IPC and 6 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kanth, District Shahjahanpur and to discharge the revisionists from the aforesaid offences. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists as well as the learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that while framing charge, no liberty was given to the revisionists, hence, no option was left to the revisionists but to move discharge application u/s 245(2) CrPC. Discharge application can be moved at any stage of trial. The concerned Magistrate erred in passing the impugned order rejecting the application moved by the revisionists u/s 245 (2) CrPC. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality.

4. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Once charge has been framed, the revisionists cannot be discharged.

5. It appears that the revisionists filed discharge application u/s 245(2) CrPC in the aforesaid case and vide order dated 20.10.2016 the concerned Magistrate rejected the said application observing that charge in the matter has already been framed and the matter was fixed for evidence under Section 246 CrPC. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only to see as to whether prima-facie case is made out or not and not to consider whether this evidence produced on the record will lead to conviction or not. Once the stage to discharge an accused is over and Court framed the charge and that order attains finality, there is no subsequent stage at which the accused can be discharged. Further, if after framing of charge trial has commenced, accused can either be convicted or acquitted and not discharged in a sessions or warrant case. The process cannot be put to back-gear for discharging the accused thereafter. Hence, the application moved before the Court below taking recourse to the provisions of Section 245(2) CrPC is nothing but to delay the proceeding of the aforesaid case. There is no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionists. The prayer made in the application is refused. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity or illegality. The revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

6. The revision is accordingly dismissed at this stage itself.