1 2025:CGHC:24544 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 893 of 2023 Rajesh Kumar Das @ Chhotu S/o Yudhisthir Das Aged About 21 Years R/o Govind Nagar, Sirgitti, P.S. Sirgitti, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - SHO, Police Station , Civil Line, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Amit Soni, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.06.2025 1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 69/2023, by virtue of which the charge for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code has been framed by the learned Court against the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the victim lodged a report before the concerned police station alleging that she was in a PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.20 11:06:52 +0530 2 relationship with the applicant for a long period of two years and she was sexually exploited by him on several occasion in the year 2019 on the pretext of marriage and when the victim forced the applicant to marry her, he denied to marry her. On the basis of said complaint, the FIR for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC was registered against the applicant bearing Crime No. 1314/2021 at Police Station Civil lines, District- Bilaspur (C.G). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and the FIR has been registered at the instance of the complainant who is married lady aged 27 years, and having a son aged about 5 years from her marriage, and further she was having affair with the applicant and both of them established physical relationship. He further submits that the trial has been fixed by 19 times but the victim has not appeared before the trial Court. He further states that the victim is not living at the address given in the FIR, hence, trial is stated to be pending, but no order-sheet has been filed to demonstrate the said fact. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State supports the order impugned and submits that there is sufficient material available on record to prove the charges framed against the applicant. 5. In the matter of Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1057, it has been held that the scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, the principle is reiterated that at this stage, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for “presuming” that the accused has committed an offence and only form an opinion whether there is 3 strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence and the relevant paras read as under:- “21. The law is well settled that although it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC or a revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, yet the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of a charge can be done only at the stage of trial. To put it more succinctly, at the stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused person. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC or a revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC seeking for the quashing of charge framed against him, the Court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial court has framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases. 22. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of CrPC has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is 4 neither permissible nor is in consonance with the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure.” 6. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, having perused the material filed by the prosecution and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, it cannot be held that the trial Court has wrongly framed the charges as aforementioned against the applicant. This Court is of the opinion that there is sufficient material available on record for the ingredients for which, the charges have been framed against the applicant. 7. Considering the fact that charges has been framed against the applicant and there is no interim order passed in the present case, in view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position noted above, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned for framing charges against the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the Revision, being bereft of any merits, is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10.Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti