JUDGMENT :

Vinay Joshi, J.

Considering the controversy involved in the matter, and by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

Admit.

2. This appeal once again occasioned us to delve upon the issue to decide on facts and circumstances of the case, whether it is a case of mere breach of promise, or a case of false promise made since inception for obtaining consent for sex. We are undertaking said exercise to the limited extent to find out whether a prima facie case is made out to frame the charge.

3. The appellant/accused aged 24 years was involved in a Crime No.134/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376[2][N] of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3[1][w][i], 3[2] [5] of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act” for short). Respondent no.2 victim aged 21 years has lodged a report against the accused for the aforesaid offences on 03.04.2021 with the Sadar Police Station, Nagpur. On the basis of said report, the police registered the aforesaid crime. Investigation was carried by the police culminated into filing of charge sheet. The accused has applied to the trial Court for discharge in terms of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On evaluation of the available material, the trial Court has formed an opinion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed further and accordingly rejected the discharge application vide order dated 03.08.2022, which is impugned herein. Since the provisions of Atrocities Act, have been involved, this is an appeal in terms of Section 14A of the said Act.

4. At the inception, the learned Counsel for the accused would submit that at the time of framing charge, the Court has power to sift and weigh the evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. For this purpose he relied on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation – [2010] 9 SCC 368. There can be no dispute about the said proposition of law, which has been reiterated in several decisions. We may refer to a decision of Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar – [1979] 3 SCC 4, wherein it has been ruled that while considering the question of framing charge, the Court has power to shift and weigh the evidence for limited purpose, however, if the material discloses grave suspicion, the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge. It is clear that if there is a strong suspicion which leads to think that there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then the Court shall proceed in framing the charge. At this juncture, the requirement is to see whether the material is sufficient to proceed further and not sufficient to convict the accused. Though the Court is permitted to sift the material to the limited extent, however, one should be mindful that at this juncture meticulous examination of the evidence, its marshaling and roving enquiry into the pros and cons is not permissible. On the enveil of these set parameters, we undertake to examine the material.

5. For considering the question involved, it necessitates us to briefly refer to the facts of the case.

The victim aged 21 years has lodged report with respondent no.1 police station. It is her contention that since she was of marriageable age, she has registered herself on a matrimonial website namely “Jeevan Sathi.com” in the month of December, 2020. She has furnished her personal details with cell number on the website. Soon after, she received a phone call of accused stating that he has seen her matrimonial profile on the website, and expressed to meet her. On 16.01.2021 the accused called her to meet at Eternity Mall, Nagpur. Accordingly, the victim went to the place where both met. In first meeting, the accused expressed that he likes her