Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26459 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43497 of 2024 Applicant :- Ravendra Vishwkarma @ Ravi Vishwkarma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Shivangi Bhargava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Atul Srivastava,G.A.,Ravindra Singh Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. Heard Miss Shivangi Bhargava, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. Perused the record. Applicant Ravendra Vishwkarma @ Ravi Vishwkarma, who is a charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. challenging the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 487 of 2022 (State Vs. Somnath and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 267 of 2021, under Section 376 D IPC, Police Station Rail Bazar, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby Court below exercised it's jurisdiction under Section 216 Cr. P. C. and has framed additional charge against the applicant, and the proceedings of aforementioned case is now pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Kanpur Nagar. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits initially charges were framed against the accused applicant by Court below, vide framing of charge order dated 9.6.2022. However, the framing of charge under Section 376 D I.P.C. was differed with the submission of F.S.L. report. After submission of F.S.L. report, Court below by the order impugned dated 12.9.2024 has framed the charges under Section 376 D I.P.C. against applicant. Learned A.G.A. has then invited the attention of Court to the definition of word rape as defined in Section 375 IPC. On basis thereof, he submits that in view of above, it cannot be inferred that no offence under Section 376 D IPC can be said to have been committed by applicant in the light of F.S.L. report. It is thus urged that no inference is warranted by this Court in present application. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, Mr. Atul Srivastava, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party 2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are duly borne out from the record and furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. As a result, this application fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 HSM Digitally signed by :- HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad