Order on Board

20 .07 . 2023

1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also

heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent No. 1 / State.

2. The present application has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and further be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 16.09.2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Session Judge Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 265/2014 and the order dated 28.07.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Tilda, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 141/2014 and the petitioners may kindly be discharged from the charges framed under Section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice.

3. It has argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner No. 1 is mother-in-law, petitioner No. 2 is husband, and the petitioners No. 3 and 4 are maternal grant parents-in-law of the respondent No. 2 / Tara Bai and the present FIR has been lodged by respondent No. 2, who is wife of the petitioner for offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC. It is argued that the petitioners had moved an application for discharge before the trial Court, the petitioner No. 2 had kept concubine who was discharged from the present case, whereas the application of the petitioners for discharge was rejected by the Trial Court and the charges has been framed, which was challenged by the petitioners before the lower Revisional Courts, which too has rejected the revision of the petitioners and has upheld the charges framed by the trial Court. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No. 2, had remained only for three months with the petitioner no. 2 and after deserting the petitioner No. 2, she re- married another person against whom, she also moved an application for maintenance. He submitted that the petitioners have been harassed by the respondent No. 2 with oblique motive, hence the order passed by the learned trial Court and Lower Revisional Court is liable to be quashed .

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned orders.

5. Considering the fact that the discharge application for the applicants has been rejected and the charges has been framed, I do not find any good ground for interference in the present impugned order passed by the Courts below.

6. The application lacks merits and is accordingly, dismissed.

7. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and conclude the same expeditiously.