•A IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. ..Ls'^.^.. /2010 Sinss's Hei'ia APPLICANT : ^ '^•' ^^y» .<5^^: '^.y-'' 3- ^ -^ 1«/\ RESPONDENTS 1) Uday Shanker Harpal S/o Shri Raja Ram Harpal, aged about 21 years, R/o Ward No.23, Near Thana Chowk, Oriya Para, Rajhara, Disfa-ict Durg (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through : Station House Officer Police Station : Dalli Rajhara, District Durg (C.G.) Shanti Bai D/o k&te Kotin Gada Aged about 19 years, R/o Oriya Para, Rajhara, District Durg (C.G.) APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OP CODE OF CRIMINALPRQCEDURE 2) HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR Sjnaie Bench: Hon'bte Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastav^ J, PcTU-iQNER RESPONDENT Cr.M.P.N0.6a8»2010 UySy' Shanker Hafpsi Versus saisTe OT ^.u. sno anoiner. PBinQN UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROGEDURE Pres&nt: - Shri Punit Ruparei, counsei for the psiiiioner. Shri A.K.Shukta, Panei Lawyerforthe State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 8th of September, 2010) This petition under Section 482 is directed against the registration of Criminai Case under FIR No.117/10 and framing of charges for alieged cornmission of offence under Section 386 and 376(1) of iPC vius impugned order dated 19/08/2010. 2. Learned counsei for the petitjoner submitted that from the case of the prosecution as reflected from the charge sheet, the age of the giri has been shown as 19 yeara. He further submits that the giri-Ku. Shanti Bai in her case diary has aiso disciosed her age as 19 years. Further submission of iearned counset for the petitioner is that even if the entire aliegations made in th®FiR and c~ase diary staternent of Ku. Shanti Bai and other vviinesses are taken on their face vaiue, case of commission of offence under Section 366 anu 376(1) iPC is not maa'e out. i-ie subrnits that frorn the stafement of the prosecutrix-Shariti Bai, it is oiear that the prosecutrix of her own wiii, had gone aiong with the applicant and thereafter physioai reiatjons were maintained and Iherefore no oase for commission of onenoe either under Section 366 or 376(1) iPC is made out. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of >»inlsh Lai Sah v. Sfate of Bihar. 2G03f1 i C.G.L.J. 138. 3. On the other hand, submission of i&arned counsei for the State is that from the statement of proseoutrix-Ku. Shanti Bai and materiai appearing on record, a case for prooeeuings and triai for aiieged commission of offence under seotion 366 and 37S (1) IPC is rnade out. Learned oounsei for the State submits that at the stage of framing charge, ali that is required to be seen is whether the case for proceedings against accused is made out or not and therefore it oould not be contended at this stage that no case for conviction is made out. 4. i have gone through the contents of the charge sheet and aiso the irnpugned order dated 19/08/2010 by whioh the oharges have been frarned against the petitioner. It is wellsettied that at the stage offraming charge what is required to be seen is whether the materia) piaced in the charge sheet by the proseoution is suffioient for praceedings against the accused and not that a case of conviction is made out. If the FiR, the case diary statement and other materials placed in the finai report submitted by the poiice taken on their face vaiue, make out a case for proceedings, charges can be framed and the aocused couid be tried for cornmission of such offence, as heiu by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhw Fradesh v. 3.B. Joiiri and others (20SSS) 1 jabaipur Law Journai 12. Niranian SinaSl Karam Sinah Punia&i v. uitendra Bhim Rai Biiiaw an<S ofliers (I^O'i 4 SCC 76. 5. Though in the present case, the charge sheet itseif indicatos that the age of the prosecutrix is 13 years, ifthe aiiegations contained in the FtR and the case diary' statement of the proseouti-ix are iooked into, it is reveaied that the petitioner had oome to her and insisted for having sexuai interoourse by s-aying that he wouid iike to marry her, whioh was denied bythe prosecutrix. Later on, on the faise assurance ,f***" -.t?2®i. S -^:.gg»ESS»j t';;5SB"" ?J of mamage, she was induced to go aiong with the petitioner to the house of one Varun and there the petitioner oornmitted sexuar inierpourae and assureci the prosecutrix that he wiil marry her after the examination. She has further stated that she has been subjeoted to sexuai intercoyrse. Simiiar statements have been made by other prosecution witnesses partksulariy the brother and the rnother of the prosecutrix. 6. Section 363 OT iPC cieariy provides that whoever abducts any women wrth intent that she may be compdied, or knowing it to be iikely that she may be forced or seduced to iliicit intercourse, shali be punisheci with imprisonment provided therein. Section 362 of IPC defines abduction by providing that whoever by any deceitfui means induces and person to go from any piace is said to abduct that person. Moreover, the manner in which the incident has been narrated by the giri, from the case of the pr(Kecution taken as it is, there is sufficient ground for proceedings as it is alieged that she was subjected to sexual interoouise against her wiii. Keiianoe was piaced on the deoision of the Supreme Court in ^inish Lai Sah (Supra). That was a case where the Court after a fuii fledged triai and in the light of evldenoe on record came to the conclusion that the evidence on record could not estabiish oommissjon of offenoe under Section 3SS and 376 (1) IPC. The Supreme Court in that case came to the condusion that there was no materiai to show that there was any threat, coercion or inducement. it cannot be said that the statement of the prosecutrix does not at all make out a case of inuucement. This Court is not inciined to interfere with the order of framing of charge mereiy on the ground that appiicant hopes thst there are good chanoes of ac^uittsi. 7. Consequentiy, i do not find any materiai in this pefition. Accordingiy, Ihe petition is disrnissed. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge