PETITIONER 63 Dr. Ugrasen Tiwari, S/o. Shri Kaushal Prasad Tiwari, Aged about 36 years, R/o. Village Badagaon, P.S. Samaria, DiSt. Rewa(M.P) Presently residing at V—S~Dy. Director Office, Mandla (M_P.) VERSS U State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Bastar, Jagdalgur (C.G.) / CRIMINAL REVIsIGN UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 THE CODE OF CRTMTNEL PROCEDURE, 1973 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAIUkE AE BILASPUR (C.G.) CRIMINAL REVIsIoN no. Gig /2005 © mmmm €11 2m» amxixi WWW WW§WW %M§nm 06/05l2005 Smt. Fouzia Mirza, counse! ior the appHcant Shri PrafuH Bharat, P.L_ for‘me State. Heard. The applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Sectien 401 of Cr‘P.C against the impugned order of framing of charges by First Add‘rtional Sessions Judge, sagdalpur in Sessions Trial No, 236/2004 in which charges under Sections 376,37? and 5068 of IPC has been framed. The argument of thelearned counsel for the applicant is that from perusal of the charge sheet itself it is ev dent that the respondent is the wife of the amused/applicant and as such t e is no ingredient available in the charge sheet which faiis Within the pun/ie of Section 375 ofthe. IPC on the basis of which charges under Section 376 o IPC can be framed. Qn the other hand learned ounsei for the State opposes the application and submits that at the time o consideration of charges, the allegations contained in the Charge sheet is to be looked into and meticulous examination of ailegations present in the charge sheet cannot be done. it is argued that the r complainant in her complaint has ade allegations against the present applicant that on the pretext of marriage wit the accused/applicant she was subjected to intercourse making her believe t she is the married wife of the applicant and subsequently she was made to a ort on the pretext that they are not married. it is further argued by the ounsel for the State that apart from charges under Section 316 the complain t was subiected to unnatural offence under Section 3/7 of IPC and she was elted to go for abortion against her Wishes Taking into consideration material availabie on record, l am of the opinion that the order of framing harge by learned Additional Sessions Judge; Jagdalpur does not suffer from a y iiiegaiity which requires interference in the exercise of re’visionai jurisdiction. Db: ‘endra Mishra Judge cordingiy;'the revision is dismissed. " sd/« h r h o p e c