1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 22.10.2007 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for discharge under section 227 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Senior Clerk at Tahsil Office, Dharmabad, who was incharge of Food & Civil Supplies department. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was a member of the raiding party which had effected raids on three shops and that the complaints were registered against those shop owners in view of the said raids. It is also his contention that certain complaints were also registered at his instance against some shop owners under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. It is the contention of the petitioner that one Vijaya w/o Dashrath Punawad had filed a false complaint against him in the office of Superintendent of Police, Nanded alleging therein that the applicant had helped her in availing the benefits of "Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana" and in return thereof had demanded sexual relationship with her. It is further stated in the complaint that complainant had physical relationship with the applicant and due to that she became pregnant. It is further alleged that petitioner also tried to commit rape on her daughter Sarita. It is further alleged in the complaint that on being enquired about the same, Sarita poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. However, due to threats given by the petitioner, she did not lodge complaint with the police. On the basis of this allegation, a chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner and the case stands committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge. It is submitted by the petitioner that since there is no material against him, he has filed application for discharge under section 227 of Cr.P.C. The same is rejected. Hence the present petition.

3. Shri. Jadhavar, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case at the instance of persons who were affected by the raids carried out by him. It is submitted that complaint filed by respondent no.2 is false. He further submits that prosecution has also conducted D.N.A. test in which it is found that the child born to respondent no.2 is not of the petitioner. He further submits that there are inconsistencies in the statement of the complainant so also her daughter.

4. He further submits that even if it is held that the petitioner had sexual relationship with the complainant, it will have to be held that it was with the consent of the prosecutrix and as such the applicant would not be guilty of section 376 of Indian Penal Code. In support of this submission, he relied on the judgment of Uday v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2003 SC 1639. He further submits that even if the prosecution conducts the trial, there is not even remote possibility of the petitioner being convicted and as such the present case is a fit case for discharging the accused. In support of this, he relies on the case of Dilawar Babu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2002 S.C. 564.

5. Shri. K.G. Patil, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. He submits that unless the complainant prosecutrix enters the dock and her evidence is recorded, the question regarding whether her evidence is truthful or not cannot be gone into. He submits that whether the complaint is false or not can only be considered at the stage of trial and as such the application as has been made,has rightly been rejected by the trial court.

6. From the perusal of the chargesheet it would reveal that F.I.R. is registered on the basis of complaint addressed by respondent no.2 to the Superintendent of Police. Copies thereof are also endorsed to the various authorities. She states in the said complaint that she was widow and therefore, under Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana,