JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. By way of instant petition, filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner Anil Sharma lays challenge to the order dated 9.12.2016, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II Kangra at Dharamshala, Circuit Court, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. in S.C. No. 9-G/VII/2016, titled as State vs. Anil Sharma, whereby he stands charged to face trial for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 376, 354, 354-A and 354-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are as under:- Petitioner is a Doctor by profession. On 22nd August, 2015, a complaint was lodged at Police Station, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P. to the effect that on 21st August, 2015, when the prosecutrix (two in number and real sisters), had gone for their dental check up, petitioner outraged their modesty and after disrobing committed an act of rape on one of them. 3. On the basis of a complaint lodged with the SHO of the concerned Police Station, FIR No. 107/15 dated 22.8.2015, was registered, under the provisions of Sections 354-A and 376(C)(D) of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Seeking reliance on the statement dated 24.8.2015 that of the main prosecutrix (aged 19 years name concealed), learned counsel argues that no case under section 376 is made out and as such accused stands wrongly charged in relation to the said offence. It be clarified that challenge, limited in nature, is only qua the charge framed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Let us see, what the said prosecutrix has stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. We need not, in extenso, deal with the same. But she does state that after the accused made her lie on the chair, he asked her to place cotton on her breast. Thereafter he took her breast in his mouth. Further the accused asked the prosecutrix to remove her lower clothes and sprayed on her private parts. 6. Inviting attention to this part of the statement, in relation to the charged offence under Section 376, it is argued that the act does not fall within the definition of rape. Thereafter he took her breast in his mouth. Further the accused asked the prosecutrix to remove her lower clothes and sprayed on her private parts. 6. Inviting attention to this part of the statement, in relation to the charged offence under Section 376, it is argued that the act does not fall within the definition of rape. For proper appreciation and ready reference, relevant provision is extracted as under:- “375 Rape-A man is said to commit “rape” if he:- (a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; (b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; (c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus, or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; (d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:- First Against her will Secondly Without her consent Thirdly With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interest, in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthly With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Fifthly With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. Prosecutrix does not state that she consented for the act. 8. She does state that the accused, after making her lie on the chair, first opened clothes of upper part of her body and thereafter, fondled with the same. Prosecutrix does not state that she consented for the act. 8. She does state that the accused, after making her lie on the chair, first opened clothes of upper part of her body and thereafter, fondled with the same. Well, this act would squarely fall within the legislative intent and scope in as much as there is manipulation of part of body of a woman. What she further states is that after the accused asked her to cover the upper part of her body with clothes, he forcibly removed the clothes of lower part of her body and sprayed on her private parts. 9. Well at this stage, it cannot be said that mere spraying would not amount to penetration into the private parts as defined under the Section. All this is a matter of trial. What also cannot be ignored is that penetration need not necessarily be in the vagina, urethra or anus. It can be on any party of the body of a woman and as such, penetration, need not necessarily be by an object or penis. Clause (a), (b), (c) of Section 375 deal with different fact situation. 10. It cannot be said that it is a case where ex facie no case is made out warranting no trial. 11. As such, present petition is dismissed, clarifying that the case shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced of any observations made herein. 12. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 9.12.2016, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, Circuit Court, Dehra, in S.C. No. 9-G/VII/2016, titled as State vs. Anil Sharma and as such, petition is dismissed. Record of trial Court be returned forthwith. 13. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.