remaining area of land. As per prosecution's case, present applicant is instrumental in getting the sale deed executed and receive earnest money in pursuance of promise made by him to get the sale deed executed. Total measuring area eighteen (18) Biswa of land has been promised to be got executed, however, only measuring area nine (9) biswa of land had been got executed in favour of respondent No. 2 and for remaining measuring area of nine (9) biswa, he (accused) has refused to fufil his promise. Moreover, on the request being made, the accused has thrashed and disrobed her. He has used caste related abusive language against the prosecutrix. Perusal of the contents of the FIR coupled with charge sheet and the material filed along with same, prima facie, the complicity of the present applicant in the said cognizable offence cannot be ruled out at this juncture. Learned counsel for the applicant is trying to establish the innocence of the present applicant, which can be adjudicated upon by the trial court more appropriately after appraisal of evidence available on record. In exercise of inherent jurisdiction, this Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial and examine the innocence of the present applicant. As per observation made by the learned trial court, charges were already framed on 5.4.2022 and the PW-1 has already completed his examination-in-chief on 22.9.2021. Thus, both the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant are, prima facie, not sustainable in the eye of law. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, indictment of the present applicant under Section 406 IPC and under SC/ST, prima facie, can not be said to be illegal.
