ORAL ORDER

1.

Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.

2.

The present revisionist has challenged the impugned judgment and common order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Court No.25, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.19 of 2020, whereby, the application preferred by the applicant seeking discharge under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3.

Heard learned advocates for the parties.

4.

The brief facts of case are that the informant victim residing at Vatva, Ahmedabad has alleged that she had joined the office of the accused no.1 in 2014. It is further alleged that the accused no.1 conveyed the victim that the present applicant, who worked at Rajkot also asked the victim to marry his brother. Further, the accused no.1 used to threaten the victim to marry him. Thereafter, in October, 2014, accsued no.1 and the victim got married secretly. It is also the case of the victim that she was forced to enter into physical relationship by accused no.1 and she was taken to Ram ville Guest House by him, where without the consent of the victim, accused no.1 entered into physical relationship. It is also alleged that when the victim visited the native of the applicant with accused no.1 in February, 2015, it came to her knowledge that the said accsued no.1 is already married and complaint was filed. Thereafter, investigation carried out and charge-sheet came to be filed and Sessions Case No.20 of 2020 came to be filed against the applicant before the Court of learned City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an application seeking discharge at Exh.6, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 23.05.2022. Hence, this Criminal Revision Application is filed by the present applicant.

5.

Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate for the applicant submits that none of the offence mentioned in the charge-sheet is made out against the accused person looking to the facts and evidence available on record. He submits that the entire narration made in the FIR by a 23 years old lady is not inspiring confidence, inasmuch as one who was major at the time of occurrence, one who on her own volition and willingness joined the accused no.1, entered into physical relations followed by a marriage taking place in the month of October, 2014 only because something went wrong and things did not fell in place as according to wish of original first informant, the impugned FIR is lodged so that she is able to pressurize the accused no.1 in one way or the other. He further submits that victim having visited the native of the accused no.1 and there is no document in the entire charge-sheet papers nor is any statement recorded by the Investigating Agency to show that by the time, the accsued no.1 was into relationship with the original first informant, he was already a married man, so therefore, a mere assertion without any proof to substantiate the stand of earlier marriage of the accused no.1 is not to be accepted as a gospel truth since the charge-sheet is already laid and as a consequential effect, stand of original first informant as regard false promise of marriage also without any head and tail. He submits that the learned Sessions Court has completely failed to consider the case of the applicant and the impugned order is against the material on record and deserves to be quashed and set aside and present application may be allowed and applicant be discharged from the charges levelled against him.

6.

On the other hand, Mr. R. C. Kodekar, learned APP for the respondent-State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant and submits that at this stage the prosecution is not supposed to prove or establish the guilt of the accused person and it is sufficient if the materials placed on record shows prima facie involvement of the accused persons. He further submits that there are sufficient evidence on record to frame c