Point of Law : Question of framing of the charges under Section 227, the Court has power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose for finding out whether or not prima-facie case against the accused has been made out.

JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. Rule.

3. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing forthwith.

4. Applicant’s application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not find favour with the Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi. Hence, this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.

5. The allegations in the First Information Report are summarised as under :

(a) According to the complainant, she and the applicant know each other since 2012. Both were working in, one Grand Hyatt Hotel at Mumbai. Their friendship blossomed and applicant assured that he would marry her. In the complaint, it has been stated that applicant promised to marry her and then exploited her emotionally and mentally to have physical relations with her frequently. In October, 2012 in Hotel Cafeteria twice they had physical intimacy. It has been stated in the complaint that in October/November, 2012 both had been to Matheran (Hill Station) and Alibag where applicant had established sexual relationship with her. Thereafter, she was conceived. At that time, the complainant told him that it would be better to get married instead aborting the fetus. Applicant, however, expressed his disinclination to marry immediately and promised to marry after two years. Although Dr. Bhojani suggested to take pills to abort fetus, complainant was reluctant.

However, the applicant could prevail over her and promised to marry her. She believed the applicant and took pills. Whereafter though the complainant was unwell, he forced himself on her in December, 2012 and thereafter started avoiding and neglecting her. In these circumstances, the complainant was under tremendous pressure. She disclosed her relationship to her father. Whereafter father drove her out of the house. In the difficult situation, she pleaded with the applicant to marry her and take her to his home. Applicant fatly refused to marry her. Complainant stated, although her family members had agreed and consented for her marriage with the applicant but the applicant had refused and declined to marry her. Whereafter she fled written complaint on 28th December, 2012. The Assistant Commissioner of Police suggested counselling of the parties and referred to Inspector Parulekar. Applicant was summoned in the police station on 4th January, 2013. Applicant in the presence of his parents, unconditionally, agreed to marry her. The complainant was convinced and was sure that applicant would marry her since he had so agreed and assured in the presence of his parents. Under this belief, she withdrew complaint on 6th January, 2013. Surprisingly, on 18th January, 2013, within fiffteen days, applicant turned the table round and informed Mr. Parulekar (Counseller) his, disinclination to marry the complainant. He communicated to counseller that, since the first date, he never committed her for marriage, but, of-late, when he realised, he could not continue with this relation, he tried in possible ways to make her understand for not continuing the relations with her. His letter to counseller suggests, that he was scared as to how his family would react and accept this relationship; he was not mentally prepared to marry at the age of 24; his family was not financially sound as they belonged to lower middle class; he was allegedly threatened over the phone by respondent’s brother-in-law and, therefore, he was mentally dismantled. In the fact situation, the complainant renewed her complaint. Whereupon Crime No.234 of 2013 under Sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 came to be registered against the applicant and others.

6. The learned Sessions Judge declined to discharge the applicant whereupon this Revision is preferred.

7. Mr. Thakare, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, contended that the material on record does not suggest that there was absolutely no intent on the part of the applicant, when he entered upon the