- (1.) This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicant, Syed Nadeem Tariq, with a prayer for setting aside impugned order, dated 22.1.2020, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Offences Against Women), Rampur, in Session Trial No.106 of 2019, State vs. Nadeem Tariq, arising out of Case Crime No.49 2014, under Sections 498A, 323, 315, 504 and 506 of IPC, read with Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Ganj, District-Rampur.
(2.) Learned counsel for applicant argued that a Discharge Application was moved before the Trial court, under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., wherein, it was specifically mentioned that there is no medical report, annexed with the case diary, nor any evidence of offence, punishable, under Section 315 of IPC, was there, except statement of the Medical Officer, alleged to have been recorded, under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which, too, was much delayed, whereas, concerned Medical Officer was not competent to make mechanical termination of pregnancy because as per the Act, related with Mechanical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (Act No.34 of 1971) and the Rules framed thereunder, mechanical termination of pregnancy is to be conducted by a Panel of two Doctors. Hence, the statement of concerned Doctor was of no concern and this fact was not considered by the Trial court, while rejecting Application, under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. The grievance is not related with other offences, i.e., offences, punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, read with Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, except framing of charge, for offence, punishable, under Section 315 of IPC, which is an abuse of process of law. Hence, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with above prayer, for avoiding abuse of process of law and for securing ends of justice, has been filed before this Court.
(3.) Learned counsel, appearing for other side, while vehemently opposing this Application, has contended that there was evidence, constituting offence, punishable, under Section 315 of IPC, and this Court is not to analyse fact, in exercise of jurisdiction, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., particularly, when offences, punishable, under other Sections of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, were admitted to be there for framing of charges and the grievance of applicant is confined with offence, punishable, under Section 315 of IPC only.;