At the stage of framing charges, only prima facie evidence is to be considered, and the accused's defence is not to be looked into.

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.10.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Special Case No.23/2020 whereby charges have been framed against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 313, 317, 201, 419, 120-B read with 34 of the IPC and Section 5(2) read with 3 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.

2 . In brief, the prosecution case is that the applicant is qualified MBBS Doctor and he runs Sanjeevni Hospital at District Anuppur. A Merg Bearing No.36/2019 was registered at police station Anuppur on 03.06.2019 and during investigation statements of Sanjay Rane, Anand Kumar Johata (Ward Boy) Dr. S.R.Paraste (Doctor), Smt. Sangeeta Singh (Staff Nurse), present applicant who is Director of Sanjeevni Hospital, were recorded. During investigation it was found that on 02.06.2019 at 2:41 PM a newborn of one day was brought at District Hospital Anuppur by his father Arjun Yadav. After admitting the newborn at hospital, he escaped from there and on the very same day the infant passed away at the hospital. Police registered offence under Section 317 against the parents of the newborn. When the police failed to trace out the whereabouts of the parents, then on 01.11.2019 filed khatma report. After the delay of more than 8 months on 23.02.2020 the mother of infant namely Renuka Yadav resident of Gram Bartarai, Police Station Ramnagar District Anuppur filed a written complaint allegig that Umesh Yadav (main accused) by concealing his identity and revealing himself as Arjun Yadav, first took prosecutrix to Sanjeevni Hospital for abortion and thereafter he took his infant to District Hospital Anuppur. Consequently, statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C of prosecutrix was recorded. In her statement she stated that she was in relationship with Umesh Yadav since 2016 and got pregnant in the year 2018. Umesh took her to Sanjeevni Hospital whereby the applicant and Dr. Kanti who is Gynecologist stated that she is pregnant and later on delivery was performed and thereafter Umesh took her to District Hospital Anuppur and then dropped her near her village.

3. Hence, police of police stationÃÂ' Kotwali, Anuppur registered FIR vide Crime No.327/2019 against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 313, 317, 201, 419, 120-B of the IPC and Section 5(2) read with 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. By the impugned order, the trial Court framed charges as mentioned above.

4. The applicant prays for quashing the charges on the grounds that the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C does not reveal any malafide against the applicant. It is also not mentioned in her statement that the applicant caused miscarrige to her as she herself admits that child was alive and was sent to District Hospital, Anuppur for further treatment. There is no direct or indirect allegation on applicant that he had aided the accused persons in concealing the facts and evidence as accused and prosecutrix have themselves concealed the identity. Therefore, no offence is made out against the applicant.

5. Heard and perused the record. It is not disputed that the applicant is the Director of Sanjeevni Hospital at District, Anuppur. Statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C has been recorded where she stated that Umesh Yadav took her to Dr. Lalit Narayan Mishra of Jaitahari and they took her to Sanjeevni Hospital where delivery was performed. The applicant claims that he is falsely implicated in the case and there is no apparent malafide on his part.

6. This Court is not inclined to accept his defence at this stage. As per the record, after framing of charges, trial is on progress. Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and also her Court statement supported the prosecution case.

7. At the st