ORDER :

This petition has been filed by the State being aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the 53rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in S.C.No.446/2017, whereunder, the application filed by the respondent – accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. came to be allowed and the accused is discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420/417 of IPC.

2. I have heard the learned State Public Prosecutor for the petitioner – State and learned counsel for the accused.

3. The factual matrix of the case are that, on 11.02.2016, complainant filed a complaint at Samata Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. On the basis of the jurisdiction, the said complaint was transferred to the Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru. It is alleged in the complaint that the victim is resident of Bombay and she got married with one Mr. Kumar Gaurav on 24.05.2014. Because of difference of opinion, she started residing separately in Bengaluru as she was working in City Bank. It is further alleged that the accused was a co-employee in the said Bank. He came in contact with her and thereafter, they became good friends. The accused started showing his love towards the complainant and proposed to marry her. It is further alleged that he used to visit the house of the complainant and has slept overnight at her place. It is further alleged that when he was staying so, he used to subject her under the influence of certain drugs and intoxicants and thereafter, he used to have sexual intercourse against her will. Such incidents have taken place on number of occasions and in that light, the complaint has been filed. The investigation officer after investigating the case filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 328, 354, 420 and 376 of IPC. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took the cognizance and committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court secured the presence of the accused and hence, the case was posted for hearing before charge. The accused filed an application for discharge on various grounds. The said application was objected by the prosecution and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court discharged the accused by impugned order. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment and order, the State is before this Court.

4. The main grounds urged by the learned State Public Prosecutor for the petitioner – State are that, the learned Sessions Judge without looking into the factual matrix has wrongly exercised the power conferred on it and has discharged the accused. The trial Court ought to have ascertained the facts whether there exists a strong suspicion with regard to the allegations made against the accused. Inspite of that, it has held a mini trial and on various grounds, the trial Court has erroneously passed the impugned order. It is his further contention that the complaint itself clearly goes to show that the accused used to come to the house of the complainant and by giving her drink and intoxicating her he used to have sex, which clearly goes to show that the said act of the accused is not a consensual sex and it is against her will. It is his further submission that the accused was knowing fully well that she is married and under the influence of pills, he used to have a physical contact. It is his further submission that the Court below has to ascertain whether the accused has any intention or not and whether the consent given by the victim is a free consent or not, which are the matters, which have to be considered and appreciated only at the time of leading the evidence. It is his further submission that, though he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2003 (4) SCC 46 but in the said judgment itself, it has been held that there is no strait jacket formula for determining whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntary, o