1 2025:CGHC:43785 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1062 of 2025 Neelam Kumar Thakur S/o Pradumn Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o R.E.S. Colony, Antagarh Quarter, Dist. North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of C.G. Through- Station House Officer, P.S.- Antagarh, Dist.- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 2 - Abc (Details Of The Respondent No.2 Prosecutrix Is Appended With Petitioner In A Envelop) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mrs. Pragya Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 28/08/2025 1. This criminal revision is filed by the applicant challenging order framing of charge dated 18.07.2025 by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur (C.G.) in Session Trail No. 14/2025 against the ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.09.01 16:14:02 +0530 2 applicant for alleged offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the date of incident complainant was major divorce lady, aged about 38 years. From the allegations leveled in the FIR, it is appearing that she was a consenting party and she had established physical relationship with applicant on more than one occasion. Applicant is also aged about 28 years and both of them were doing their business in same complex. Complainant appears to be literate lady as she was doing business and running tiles shop, she was well aware of the pros and corns of the relation which she established with the applicant. Therefore, offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC would not be attracted. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in 2019 LawSuit(SC) 1504. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed with this revision application. 5. Submission of counsel for applicant to challenge the charge framed against the applicant for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) is that the complainant/victim is a consenting party, being a major divorce lady. Law with regard to interference with the charge framed by trial Court is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decisions in case of State 3 of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa reported in (1996) 4 SCC 659 explaining the meaning of the word “presumed” has observed thus: “32. ...if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has commuted the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.” 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 460 laid down the guidelines for considering the challenge to framing of charge has held as under: “27.2 The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurb and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. xxxx xxxx xxxx 27.3 The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. xxxx xxxx xxxx 27.9 Another very significant caution that the Courts have to observe is that it cannot examined the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of Court leading to injustice.” 7. Yet in another case, State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kahyap (2011) 11 SCC 191, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that at the time of framing of charge it has to be seen whether or not a prima facie 4 case is made out and the defence of the accused is not to be considered. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (2019) 15 SCC 584, while considering the challenge of framing of charge held that, High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not required to go for mini trial and held thus: “7. We are of the view that the High Court could not have conducted a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge, and that too in revision filed against the order framing charges. We are of the view that it it impossible to state at this stage that no case could possibly be made out for ultimate conviction of respondent no. 2. This being the case, we set-aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Trial Court.” 9. In the light of aforementioned decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court if facts of the present case is taken into consideration, perusal of FIR would show that report was lodged on 03.05.2025 alleging that applicant from 29.11.2023 till 08.04.2024 has committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. When she requested the applicant to perform marriage with her he refused, and later on blocked her mobile number. In the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. also, she made similar statement as alleged in the FIR. 10. At the stage of framing of charge, it is not required for the Court to form definite opinion that accused is guilty of committing offence but Court has only to presume that there are grounds to proceed against accused. At the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the material cannot be gone into but the material brought by prosecution has to be accepted as true. The defence of accused is not be looked into at the stage of framing charge, which would be subject matter of trail. 5 11. From the aforementioned facts as available in charge-sheet, in the opinion of this Court, trial Court has not committed any error in framing of charge against the applicant for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. At this stage, this Court has to see whether there is prima facie material available against the applicant to proceed and not to view the material available in the charge-sheet as to whether it will culminate into conviction. 12. For the forgoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision, accordingly it is dismissed at the admission stage. However, it is made clear that trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observation made by this Court in this order, as the same are only confined to the challenge in this revision. The trial Court shall decide the criminal case on its own merit based on the evidence to be brought in record by the respective parties. 13. Office is directed to send the copy of the order to the learned trial Court. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) alfiza Judge