BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.R. No. Of2006. APPLICANT v' yt^.-^- ^^ •. ^0b^ y vS>s> •y ^l.0-' Gulab Yadu, son ofLate Bhule- har Yadu, aged about 3 1 years, resident ofSitapur, Tahsil & P.S. Palari, Dista-ict Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS NON-APPLICANT State ofChhattisgarh, Through Station Incharge, P.S. Palari, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), CMMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 3$7 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CODE OF CMMINAL PROCEDURE. < i.i-t.is. »-i .,nv, v.; w i XI-HC-78 «1MMI sb*<|cb 3^ •<<l<lld<l, BTflu'16, Is|<'lltfy -XY^^ •. .^.o.....^.€Z^6 200 3ii^;?i yach ('i^fjst^sr) 3n^TqiTR-ii+ tW311^rst»<|ch 5TtITWOl?tT3T1^r °hl<<f<~l41-f flTRcff ff fS^S 'KIW.K, ^iari^iTsn^T 14.02.a007 Shri H.B. Agrawal, S; couasel for fhe applicaiit. Shri Anui Sao, Govt. Ad . Advocate with Shri J.K. Gupta, Arguruents heard aad'.n ..<; This revision is directt charges dated 31.8.20Q6 pas^s Judge, Baloda Bazar, Distric|t 313/2006, whereby the charges under Sections 4501 against fhe accused/applicajif The copy ofF.I.R. has 4 The F.I.R. would show that| Puspa Bai, aiid it cohtauis fhi^ accused ia fhe crune. The the prosecutrix itiakes allej forceful sexual intercourse b^( house on a particular day an.4 life by showiitg knife. It is tnaes, fhe applicaat co] the prosecutrix by fhreateuiii| for not disclosiag fhis fact to In view of flie conteny fhe charges framed against^ A4vocate appears for fhe State. :cord perused. ;d agauist the order of framing of ^sed by the First Additional Sessioas ric^t- Raipur (CG) in sessions trial No. leAmed Sessions Judge framed the 506 (II) £md 376 (1) of the LP.C. pejrusal baseless and there appears ^cj *^ ;en filed at page-6 ofthe paper-book. it was lodged by the coinplainaat- nam.e of fhe present applicant as sei of report would also show fhat ^ations fliat she was subjected to fhe applicaat after entering into her fhe applicant also threatened Iier for ^lso alleged ia fhe F.I.R. fhat raany forceful sexual iatercourse agauist L^ her aiid he had also fhreatened her ^Dy body else. ', of the F.I.R., it caniiot be said fhat the applicant are uiifouitded aiid be no prmia facie case against him.. itt(td P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3:n^Tq>]'l f? cTSTT3TT^TstiHi<=h ^IIH^fT St»*11<h 3^? •<<ww<-i, aiflu'Ko, Rtciiy^< _^y,^^ t^/9-^^ '• ^[ 200 W^\ 4^»b(liclIj61S]T) ??cITWHf?(T3n^T — "2 In view of fhe coaynts complamant, I do not fiad a4y passed by tlie Sessions Courtl fhe accused/applicaut under ^ The petition has no in^4 In view of fhe above, IVt stay of furfher proceedirs.g staijids 'hi^fci'fl-i *<iti<'iTfftec^t<Ri't^i< ^sTf^Trsn^r of the F.I.R. lodged by the reasoa to interfere with the order regarding fraaiiiig of charges agaiiist ±iea&reitientioned Sections ofl.P.C. tts and fhe saiae is disrm'Rsed. . [.(Cri.)P. No. 2323/2006 for grant of disposed of. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judse ,iA