LAV Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By putting Section 397/401, Cr.P.C. in motion, the accused-applicant has filed this revision application challenging the order dated 9-5-2013 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Sessions Trial No. 82/2013 framing charge under Section 376(1), IPC. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that amendment in Section 375 of the Penal Code has been enforced with effects from 3-2-2013 but according to the amended Section 375 also, the averments made by the prosecutrix in the FIR do not tally with the definition of rape. Hence, it is prayed that the charge framed under Section 376(1), IPC be quashed.

(2.) On the other hand, Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Public Prosecutor submits that learned Trial Court did not commit any error in framing the charge under Section 376(1), IPC.

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision application deserves to be allowed.