1 2025:CGHC:53262 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 80 of 2021 Vinod Kumar Choudhary S/o Late Ishwarchand Choudhary Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Kathali Thana - Pussore District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Pussore District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate For State For Complainant : : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 31/10/2025 1. The present Criminal Revision is filed by the applicant under Section 397/401 of the CRPC, 1973 against the order dated 13.01.2021 passed in Special Criminal Case under The Atrocities 2 Act/33/2020 by the Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Raigarh (C.G.). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present applicant and the complainant both are connected to political parties, on 20.05.2020 between 11:30-12:00 pm the applicant went inside the house of the complainant and locked it from the inside, whereby the sonof the complainant started to knock the door but no one came out, so he decided to wait, after which when the applicant came outside, there was a hot talk between the applicant and the son of the complainant, to which he abused the complainant. After the incident, the complainant went to the aforesaid police station and lodged FIR against the applicant, alleging that, the applicant abused her, the police authorities lodged the report for an offence under Section 294, 506, 323, 354 of IPC later on due to influential source of the complainant, the police added Sections 3(1) (n) (Ä) (स-2) (3)(2)(V-) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the applicant bearing Crime No. 96/2020 at Police Station Pussore, District- Raigarh (C.G.). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that as per the statement of the witnesses, none of the witnesses have specified a single statement which clarifies that, the applicant had abused the complainant on basis of her caste, which distinctly shows that, the applicant has been wrongly implicated in the false case of ST SC Act and the complainant just for the grudge against the applicant, stated untruthful facts before the authorities. 3 4. Learned counsels for the respective respondents have opposed the contention made by the counsel for the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Vide impugned order dated 13.01.2025, the learned Special Judge, Raigarh has framed the charges upon the applicant. When the applicant denied the charges, then the learned Special Judge summoned the witnesses for evidence. At this stage it is not required to go into the merits of the prosecution evidence as required to discuss at the stage of passing of judgment by the trial Court. There is no need to sift and weigh or appreciate the prosecution evidence as well as defence available to the applicants and come to the conclusion that no prima-facie case is made out nor could be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 26.08.2013 warranting interference by way of this revision petition against framing of charge. 7. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is hereby dismissed on merits. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima