JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—

1. In this appeal, an interesting point has been raised. A learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the revision application filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) quashing the order framing charge.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On 6.3.2001 a complaint was made to the Police Station , Rampur Gurra by the victim stating that the accused promised her that he will marry her and committed sexual intercourse with her due to which she was carrying a pregnancy of 7 months. But he refused to marry her because she belongs to a lower caste. A criminal case was registered for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and Section 3(1)(xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the ‘Act’). A First Information Report was registered.

According to the appellant, since at that time nobody had joined the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police , Hoshangabad Additional Superintendent of Police authorized S.I. B.S. Parihar to investigate into the case who undertook inspectio