The Court emphasized the necessity of properly framing charges and providing sufficient notice to the accused, affirming that evidence suggests ongoing offenses warranting their consideration.

1. The instant revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "CrPC") seeking setting aside of the order dated 05.07.2023 passed in Special Criminal Case No.1/2023 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) (POCSO), Raigarh has rejected application of applicant filed under Section 227 of CrPC and charged the petitioner under Sections 376 (2) (n), 376 (2), 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’); Section 5 (l) & 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3 (2) (v-a), 3 (1) (w) (i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1989’).

2. Brief facts of present case, as alleged in FIR, are that on 1.11.2022 victim lodged written report in concerned police station mentioning that during a badminton competition in the Stadium at Raigarh, she met with applicant on 24.1.2009 and thereafter they started talking to each other. In January, 2012 on being called by applicant, she went to Pussour, applicant took her to his house and forcibly established physical relation with her saying that he will marry her.

Thereafter, even after her resistance, he established physical relation with her on many occasions at different places i.e. Jaipur, Pahadganj Delhi, Puri etc. In the month of November, 2018 when she had conceived pregnancy, applicant got it aborted by administering medicine. Thereafter, on 9.1.2019 applicant performed marriage with other girl, however, he continued relationship with complainant. When complainant again became pregnant, applicant again got the pregnancy aborted. Ultimately, on 12.10.2022 applicant refused to marry her and when she objected to the same, he assaulted her and threatened her of life. Based on this report, initially the offence under Sections 376 & 506 of IPC was registered and during investigation, the offence under Section 3 (1) (b), 3 (2) (5) of the Act of 1989 and Section 4 , 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 have also been added.

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under aforementioned sections was filed against applicant before the competent Court. Applicant filed an application under Section 227 of CrPC seeking his discharge from the case contending, inter alia, that at the time when first incident of rape allegedly occurred, the Act of 2012 has not come into force, therefore, the provisions of the Act of 2012 would not attract in present case warranting framing of charge under Section 4 & 6 of the Act of 2012. The trial Court vide order impugned rejected the said application by passing a detailed order holding, inter alia, that the offence alleged to have been continued after 1st January 2012, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the offence was not committed after coming into force of the Act of 2012. After perusing the material available in charge sheet, the trial Court inferred that prima facie there are sufficient materials to frame charges against the petitioner and accordingly, framed the charges under the aforementioned sections.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has vehemently submitted that, the impugned order framing charge (s) against the applicant is vague and in utter disregard to the mandatory provisions of Section 212 CrPC as the charges do not contain the particulars of date, time and place of occurrence of the offence allegedly committed by applicant. Since the charges framed by trial Court do not disclose the essential details that are necessary to enable sufficient notice as regards his culpability of the