(18/08/2021)

1.

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 16.02.2021

2

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 20.04.2015, 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

01.03.2016. 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 02.01.2016, 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 07.05.2019 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

3

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

16.02.2021 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 no1, 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 0