JUDGMENT :

1. Present Revision, under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by the revisionist, Lalit, assailing order, dated 14.11.2019, passed by the Sessions Judge, Baghpat, with this contention that the Revisional court failed to appreciate facts and law placed before it and passed impugned order, under failure of exercise of appropriate jurisdiction and the order, being apparently erroneous on the face of record, deserves to be set aside.

2. Learned counsel for revisionist argued that there is no evidence for offence, punishable, under Section 316 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (In short 'IPC'),whereas, occurrence was said to have occurred at the parental house of the informant and mother of the victim and it was said to be the month of November, whereas, medical report of hospital reveals that it was a case of June, 2017, i.e., not corroborating with the accusation levelled by the informant and her daughter-victim. Hence, it was asked specifically that is there any medical document or reference regarding miscarriage and it was answered that no such medical document is there. Hence, above conclusion of trial court was apparently against fact on record. Hence, this revision with above prayer.

3. From very perusal of the impugned order, dated 14.11.2019, it is apparent that an Application, bearing no. 5B, was moved by the accused/revisionist, Lalit, on 31.10.2019, with this contention that chargesheet contained Section 316 of IPC, but, there is no evidence regarding above offence, hence, charge for above offence, be not levelled against accused-applicant. This was objected by learned Public Prosecutor and revisional court, vide impugned order, dismissed above Application 5B and this Criminal Revision is against above order.

4. First information report was got lodged by Smt. Bhagwani on 22.1.2018 with this contention that her daughter, Manisha, was married with accused-revisionist, Lalit, on 1.2.2017, wherein, dowry was given as per capacity, but, after marriage, in-laws demanded cash of Rs. One Lakh, with a Motorcycle in dowry, and with regard to this demand she was subjected to cruelty. Manisha, victim, received conception, but, owing to assault made by the accused-applicant, Lalit, she faced miscarriage. Accused persons took entire belongings of Manisha, victim, and they ousted her from her nuptial house on 12.12.2017.

5. In the absence of informant, at the victim's parental house, accused persons gave assault to victim and attempted to throttle her, extended threat and abused her. In this case crime number, during investigation, statements of informant and victim were recorded, under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Victim was examined, under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. also. In her statement, recorded, as above, she had reiterated contention of accused, though alleged assault was said to have been made by her husband. Hence, other in-laws were not charge-sheeted and revisionist, Lalit, was chargesheeted, wherein, a proceeding, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed and this Court stayed proceeding against other accused persons, but, for revisionist, Lalit, no relief was granted, hence, trial proceeded against revisionist, Lalit, wherein, this application was moved, with above prayer, but, the Revisional court rejected said application on the ground that offence, punishable, under Section 316 of IPC was in existence, hence, charge was to be framed.

6. As per law laid down by the Apex Court, as well as by this Court, preferable, in the case of Palwinder Singh vs. Balwinder Singh and others, reported in (2008) 14 SCC 504, it has been held by the Apex Court that pre trial acquittal may not be given and for framing of charge, a meticulous analysis of evidence is not required. At this stage, even on the strong suspicion, charges can be framed.

7. In present case, this Court had given no relief to accused, revisionist-Lalit, and at this stage, charge for offence, punishable, under Section 316 is