JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., has been filed against the judgment dated 21.5.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Court of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities), Dausa in Sessions Case No. 48/2006 whereby the charges against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 366, 346 and 376 I.P.C. along with Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The short facts of the case are that Asha Meena prosecutrix lodged an F.I.R. on 8.4.2006. After investigation, it was found that the present petitioner is not involved in the offence. During trial, under the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C., cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 366, 346 and 376 I.P.C. along with Section 3(2)(5) of Schedule Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which was challenged before this Court. Now the present petitioner has been charged for the above offences, hence, this petition. 3. The contention of the present petitioner is that in F.I.R. allegation has been made against the present petitioner but in proceeding of police written on the same date it has been narrated by the prosecutrix that present petitioner has nothing done wrong with her and during investigation also, he filed an application of this effect on 9.4.2006 meaning thereby that the present petitioner is not guilty of sexual assault on the prosecutrix and charges could have not been framed against him. 4. Per contra, contention of learned Public Prosecutor is that in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. allegation has been alleged against the petitioner and in Court statement, same story again has been narrated against the present petitioner and there is prima facie evidence to charge the present petitioner for above offence. In statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., same allegation has been leveled against the present petitioner, hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the photostat copies of the record of the case. It is true that after the lodging of the F.I.R., it has been stated that present petitioner has done nothing wrong with the prosecutrix and application of this nature has also been filed before the Investigating Officer which resulted in negative report in favour of the present petitioner. It is true that after the lodging of the F.I.R., it has been stated that present petitioner has done nothing wrong with the prosecutrix and application of this nature has also been filed before the Investigating Officer which resulted in negative report in favour of the present petitioner. In statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., specific allegations have been lodged against the present petitioner and in Court statement also, same fact has been narrated on which cognizance under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been taken against the present petitioner, which order was assailed without any positive result in favour of the petitioner. When specific allegation have been levelled against the petitioner in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 164 Cr.P.C. and in even Court statement, Court below was justified in framing the charges against the petitioner. 6. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition is liable to rejected and is rejected.Revision dismissed. *******