2024:CGHC:35820 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1030 of 2024 • Yashwant Dadsena S/o Birsingh Dadsena Aged About 50 Years R/o Sector 3 Professor Colony, Raipur, P.S. Purani Basti, District Raipur, C.G.

... Applicant versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Home, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.

2. Superintendent Of Police Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, C.G.

3. Station House Officer P.S. Pithaura, District Mahasamund, C.G.

4. A B C Nil ... Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha and Ms. Deepa Jha, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

Order on Board

12.09.2024

1. The applicant has filed the present criminal revision under Sections

438 and 442 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge Mahasamund (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 47/2022 by which the charges have been framed under Sections 498, 313, 354 read with Section 34 of IPC against the present applicant.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the material collected by the prosecution does not reflect that the applicant was involved in the commission of offence and even there is no material to suggest that he has abused the wife of his nephew and has also teased her by using bad words, therefore, framing of charges are illegal and deserves to be quashed by this Court. It has also been contended that the FIR has been lodged after more than 2 years and on this count alone the charge should have not framed against the applicant. It has also been submitted that the decree of divorce has been passed by the learned Family Court on 25.04.2023, as such also offence under Section 498 is made out against the present applicant. It has been further contended that the learned Trial Court without considering this aspect of the matter has mechanically framed the charge, also rejected the application under Section 227 for discharge vide order dated 01.08.2024 which is illegality and deserves to be quashed by this Court and the present applicant has no role to play in the alleged offence as he lived separately in separate house.

3. Per contra learned counsel for the State would submit that whatever the submission is being raised by the applicant in his defense which cannot be considered while framing of the charges. He would further submit that for framing of charges some material was against the applicant, particularly the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that the alleged role played by the applicant. He would further submit that in this situation this Court may not exercise its revisional power as no exceptional circumstances or situation has been placed on record before this Court. Therefore, he would pray for dismissal of the criminal revision.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and State and perused the record annexed with the revision petition.

5. The submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the material collected by the prosecution against the applicant prima facie does not disclose the commission of offence by the present applicant is being considered. The submission made by the applicant that he is not involved in the commission of offence as he resides separately and the fact that divorce has been taken place on 25.04.2023, as such no charge is made out deserves to be rejected as from bare perusal of the charge, it is quite vivid that the charge levelled against him pertains from 13.06.2012 to 23.07.2021 when the marriage was subsisting and victim was residing at the matrimonial house, as such it cannot be said that at this stage no charges can be framed against the applicant without appreciating the evidence adduced during the trial. Further submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the