1 2026:CGHC:2461 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 509 of 2020 Rahul Chauhan S/o Tara Chand Chauhan Aged About 31 Years R/o N- 58 F.F. Pratap Nagar, Kisan Ganj, Near Gulabi Bagh, P.S.- Gulabi Bagh, New Delhi -7 District New Delhi (Delhi) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the orders dated 23.09.2019 dismissing the application under Section 177 and 179 of CrPC filed by the applicant, and order dated 21.01.2020 dismissed the application under Section 227 of CrPC filed by the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 applicant for his discharge, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), District – Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 107/2019, whereby the learned trial Court framed the charges against the applicant under Section 376 and 420 of IPC. Hence, the applicant preferred this Criminal Revision. 3. The facts, in brief, is that on the basis of a written complaint dated 09.03.2019 lodged by the victim, namely Heena Ajmera the SHO P.S. Durg. Dist. Durg (C.G.) the said police has registered the Crime No. 213/2019 under Section 376 and 420 of I.P.C. As per the F.I.R., the victim was working as a Dy. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank. She alleged that, on 24.10.2018 she came into contact with the applicant through a matrimonial web-site and she was having talks, chatting and messaging on 'whats-App' and phone calls with the applicant. According to her she and the applicant shared matters related to their personal life with each other. During such calls the applicant expressed his interest to marry the victim on which she also agreed. On 12.11.2018 the victim paid Rs. 48,772/- from her credit-card for a wrist-watch purchased by the applicant through Flipcart. However, the applicant returned the said wrist-watch to the Flipcart and the abovesaid amount was credited back on next day i.e. on 13.11.2018 in her credit-card. 4. According to the victim the applicant took money from her credit card in the name of surgery of his friend's sister, vendor payments 3 and other expenses on various dates which comes to Rs. 10,50,000/- out of which she paid Rs. 6 Lakh from her father's account through cheque to the applicant. She has further alleged that, on request of the applicant on 07.12.2018 she went to Delhi in order to meet the applicant and his parents, but he did not arrange meeting as his father became ill at that time they had stayed in Hotel Golden Tulip at Gurgaon. Thereafter, she again went to Delhi on 16.02.2019 and again stayed in Room No. 105 in Hotel Golden Tulip at Gurgaon but he went back in the night of 16.02.2019, however, he came to her room on the next day i.e. 17.02.2019 and forcefully made sexual relations against her will and committed rape upon her. Later on the applicant refused to marry her. Thereafter, the victim has lodged the FIR based upon her written complaint against the applicant at P.S. Durg (C.G.) on 09.03.2019 under Section 376 and 420 of I.P.C. 5. During investigation statement under Section 161 of CrPC was recorded on 10.03.2019 in which also she has admitted that, the alleged offence under Section 376 was committed in Room No. 105 in Hotel Golden Tulip at Gurgaon on 17.02.2019 by the applicant. After completion of investigation the respondent/Police has filed the charge sheet on 07.06.2019 before the learned C.J.M. Durg against the applicant under Section 376 and 420 of I.P.C. The case has been committed by the CJM to the learned Sessions Judge, Durg vide order dated 21.06.2019 from where it is made over to the trial court of learned Additional Sessions 4 Judge (FTC), Durg, where it has been registered as S.T. No. 107/2019 (State Vs. Rahul Chauhan). Earlier the applicant had challenged the jurisdiction of the Police and the learned trial Court at Durg by filing an application under Section 177 and 179 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that, they do not have the territorial jurisdiction as the said offence was allegedly committed at Gurgaon and not at Durg, but the same was dismissed vide-the impugned order dated 23.09.2019. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge but the same has also been dismissed vide impugned order 21.01.2020 and on the same day charge under Section 376 and 420 of I.P.C. has been framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 107/2019. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that even if the entire prosecution story is taken to be correct as a Gospel Truth, there is no connection between the offence under two Sections i.e. Section 376 and Section 420 of IPC, as both the offences are distinct. As per the victim herself the said offence under Section 376 of IPC did take place at Gurgaon and not at Durg, therefore, the Police and learned trial Court at Durg do not have the territorial jurisdiction to investigate and decide the said offence. Thus, the impugned order is liable to set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 5 and supports the impugned order dated 23.09.2019 dismissing the application under Section 177 and 179 of CrPC filed by the applicant, and order dated 21.01.2020 dismissed the application under Section 227 of CrPC filed by the applicant for his discharge, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), District – Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 107/2019, whereby the learned trial Court framed the charges against the applicant under Section 376 and 420 of IPC, and he further submits that the charges have been framed against the applicant and there is a specific allegation levelled against the applicant for exploiting the victim for sexual purposes, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From the perusal of the array of the cause title, it goes to show that the complainant/victim has not been levied as a respondent in the present revision, and though the coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the interim order dated 18.06.2020 staying the further proceedings of the trial, but on the pointed query being made by this Court from the counsel for the applicant as to why the victim has not been made a party in the present revision, he is unable to answer the same. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for 6 the respective parties and upon a careful perusal of the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court, District–Durg (C.G.), it clearly transpires that charges have been framed against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The record discloses specific and categorical allegations against the applicant alleging that he exploited the victim for sexual purposes, therefore, it is clear that the learned trial Court, after due application of mind and upon consideration of the material available on record, has arrived at a conscious and reasoned conclusion while framing the charges, and there is no any illegality and infirmity in the same warranting any interference of this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated. 12. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar