1 2025:CGHC:42762 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 913 of 2025 Prashant Shrivastava S/o Lt. Panna Lal Shrivastava Aged About 43 Years R/o Clubpara Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through - Station House Officer, P.S. Scheduled Caste Welfare Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For the petitioner : Mr. Shashwat Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 22/08/2025 1. By this appeal filed under section 14-A(1) of Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the order dated 24.02.2025 passed in Criminal Sessions Trial No.06/2025 whereby by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur, District Raipur has framed charges against the appellant under sections 376(2)(n), 417 and 506 (Part 2) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.04.2024 the victim lodged a written complaint before the Police Station AJAK, Raipur, alleging that she came to be acquainted with the appellant in the year 2012 and thereafter she used to go to Raipur where they stayed many times at a Hotel. She has alleged that for the first time in 2013, the appellant established physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of marriage. and further in the month of June-July, 2019, the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her in the same hotel at Raipur. The prosecutrix came to know the fact that appellant was having relationship with other girls and subsequently when she objected then he started threatening to viral her photographs and video. On 12.04.2024, the appellant called her at Ram Mandir at VIP Chowk where he told her that marriage could not be possible because of different caste and performed marriage with another girl and thus cheated her. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR vide Crime No.2/2024 was registered against him. 3. The police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet dated 06.02.2025. The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 24.02.2025 framed the charges for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 417 and 506(Part 2) of IPC and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix was a major lady and was consenting party and earlier also she had lodged false complaints against two other boys on similar allegations and it has become common practice for her to file such complaints. He submits that no material has been collected by the prosecution to prove the ingredients of Section 375 of IPC and the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is no evidence on record to connect the accused in crime u/s 376 of IPC. He placed reliance on decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Shankar v. State of Karnataka (2019) 18 SCC 204; Deelip Singh v. 3 State of Bihar (2005) 1 SCC 88 and Jaspal Singh Kaural Versus State of NCT of Delhi and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 742 and submits that long term sexual intercourse with the consent of major lady would not be a ground to frame charge. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned order of framing charges against the appellant and submits that on the pretext of marriage, the appellant sexually exploited the victim and further threatened to make her photographs and videos viral and also threatened to her life. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. The decisions of the Supreme Court relied on by the counsel for the appellant are not of the cases under the Special Act. In the instant case, the prosecutrix was not only threatened but also denied the marriage on the basis of caste. Based on legal principles and interpretations of the Act, an appeal under Section 14A(1) is not the correct avenue to quash charges of long-term sexual intercourse. Such a course of action would require a full trial and evaluation of evidence. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of framing of charge warranting interference in this appeal. 8. Accordingly, the appeal has no merits and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao