The main legal point established in the judgment is that a complaint filed as a counter-blast, after the initiation of divorce proceedings, and lacking prior complaints or corroboration, may be considered an afterthought and improbable, leading to the discharge of the accused.

ORDER : – The applicants have preferred this criminal revision under section 397(1) read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 16-2-2021 passed in SCATR No. 38/2020 by Special Judge, (Atrocities) Mandla framing charge against the applicant No. 1 under section 498-A of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sections 3(1)(z), 3(1)(zc) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and against the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 under section 498-A of IPC, section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(z) and section 3(1)(zc) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. As per the applicants, the Court below has not considered the factual aspects of the matter in consonance with the actual existing legal position and ignoring the same, framed charges against the applicants.

3. For deciding the correctness of the order, the important facts of the case in a nutshell are that on 20-4-2015, the applicant No. 1 entered into marriage with the non-applicant No. 2 at Jagannath Mandir, Jabalpur and out of the said wedlock, the non-applicant No. 2 gave birth to a child on 1-3-2016. The non-applicant No. 2 belongs to ‘Gond’ community and after marriage, the applicant No. 1 and non-applicant No. 2 were residing as husband and wife but with effect from 2-1-2016, the non-applicant No. 2 started living separately as the relations between them were not cordial and there was some dispute between them. When it became almost impossible to settle the disputes, the applicant No. 1 filed a suit on 7-5-2019 seeking a decree of divorce under section 13-A of Hindu Marriage Act, 1959 at Family Court, Dindori.

4. The notice was issued to the non-applicant No. 2 and after receiving notice and knowing about filing of the divorce petition, she lodged a complaint to the Police Station, Kotwali, Mandla District Mandla and after enquiring about the complaint, the police registered the offence against the accused persons under section 498-A of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The offence has also been registered under the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants moved an application before the Court below under section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging them because the complaint made by the non-applicant No. 2 is nothing but a counter-blast, just to create pressure upon the applicant No. 1 to get his petition of divorce withdrawn. The said application has been considered by the Court below and rejected vide impugned order dated 16-2-2021 thereby not considering the aspect that a false complaint has been made by the non-applicant No. 2 considering the fact that divorce petition has already been filed by the applicant No. 1.

6. It is also contended by learned counsel for the applicants that though the complainant originally belonged to ‘Gond’ community, which comes under Scheduled Caste category but after marriage with the applicant No. 1, she did not remain to be in SC category and as such, cases relating to the offences of SC/ST Act are not made out against the applicants. The Court below rejected the application mentioning therein that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has very limited scope of interference and in view of the material placed by the prosecution, even if suspicion arises regarding false implication, the accused cannot be discharged.

7. Shri Ahadullah Usmani, learned counsel appearing for the applicants criticized the order passed by the Court below and submits that in view of the existing factual position, admittedly after living separately from the applicant No. 1, the non-applicant No. 2 has not made any report to the police and has also not made any complaint with regard to demand of dowry nor attributed anything against the applicants that they have committed any offence relating to SC/ST Act. He submits that the non-applicant No. 2 started living separately with effect from 2-1-2016 and after almost three years, he