would submit that while considering the case at the time of framing charge, the trial court should apply its judicial mind to decide whether there is any primafacie material to proceed with the trial of the case or not. In the present case learned trial court ought to have considered that with respect to offence under Section 313 of IPC, there is no prima-facie material produced by the complainant or by the witnesses to say that the complainant was suffered by miscarriage of her second foetus without her consent, by her husband / present applicant. There is no exact date given by the complainant about her conceiving pregnancy, or even she actually conceived second time or not. She would also submit that the date is very relevant in the case because, if she was not there at the time of the alleged conceiving the pregnancy, then the whole case of the complainant can be dis-believed and it does not sufficient to say that in between 16.01.2015 to 16.01.2019, the three months fetus of the complainant got aborted by the applicant by administering pills, without her consent. The necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 313 of the IPC are missing. She would further submit that as per the MODI’s Medical Jurisprudence, three months old foetus cannot be terminated only by administering pills unless they administered in very large doses. Allegation made by the complainant in her complaint is very vague, which does not constitute any offence of Section 313 of the IPC against the applicant, and therefore, the impugned order with respect to framing of charge under section 313 of the IPC against the applicant is liable to be quashed, and the applicant is entitled to discharge from the said offence.
