1 2025:CGHC:1682 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1155 of 2023 Kamlesh Latkar S/o Mohan Latkar Aged About 23 Years R/o Aurayikhurd, Police Station Balouda, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Seepat, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. XYZ, address as mentioned in the charge-sheet. ... Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate. For Respondent /State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, PL For Complainant/Objector Mr. AH Rizvi & Mr. Hemant Sahu, Advocates ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 10.01.2025 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 25.09.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Bilaspur (CG) in Sessions Case No.187/2023. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that written report has been submitted by respondent No.2/complainant on 06.12.2022 before the concerned Police Station stating that on the pretext of marriage, present applicant/accused has sexually exploited her and thereafter refused to marry with her. Based upon report, crime No.554/2022 for offence under Section 376 of IPC has been registered against the 2 applicant. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet has been filed and trial Court has framed the charge on 25.09.2023 for offence under Section 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that while passing the impugned order of framing of charge, trial Court has ignored the fact that victim/complainant in her statement has not supported case of prosecution. Trial Court has failed to see that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon false implication and under the influence of third party, the victim has lodged a complaint against the applicant. Preliminary enquiry has not been conducted carefully by the Police Official before registering of the case against the present applicant. Learned Counsel further submits that trial Court also ignored the fact that the applicant had love affair with the complainant, but physical relationship was never established with her, he also wants to marry her, but on searching mobile of victim, it was found that she was having love affair with her ex-boyfriend (Punesh Ram) for the last 03 years. When he objected, alleged offence/crime has been registered against him by the victim. Entire charge-sheet shows that no case under Section 376 of IPC would be made against the applicant as the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the consent of the parties. Hence, it prayed that impugned order dated 25.09.2023 may be set aside and applicant be set free from aforesaid charges as framed against him. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Maheshwar Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand 2020 (10) SCC 108; Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46. 3 4. Learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant/victim opposes the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that the applicant on the pretext of marriage has sexually exploited the victim and then refused to marry her. Based upon report lodged by complainant, Crime No. 554/2022 for offence under Section 376 of IPC was registered against the applicant. The investigation of this case has been done strictly in accordance with law and sufficient material/evidences available in the charge sheet, which prima-facie reveals the guilty of the applicant for commission of alleged offence/crime. Statement of complainant recorded under section 164 of CrPC wherein she has categorically stated about the incriminating and heinous act of accused/applicant. Learned Counsels further submit that the applicant has directly approached before this Court without submitting the evidence before the trial Court concerned and taking recourse available under the law. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction ordinary the Court does not interfere with the matter except in case whether the trial Court has committed gross illegality and manifest error, however, in the present case there is prima-facie material available against the applicant to prosecute him for the aforesaid offence. Thus, present deserves to be dismissed. Trial Court had taken cognizance in the matter and the applicant can raise all his defence and put all the evidence/material before the trial Court and defend himself. 5. Hear learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence/material available including the impugned order. 6. Considering facts of the case, pleadings made in the petition, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly submission that the 4 applicant can raise all his defence and put all the evidence/material before Court below and defend himself, further considering that as per statement of complainant/victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC, prima facie case is made out against the applicant under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Session Court. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-