The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for voluntary and informed consent, as well as the careful examination of circumstances in cases involving allegations of enticement and mistreatment.

JUDGMENT

The present revisional application has been preferred challenging the continuance of the proceedings in S.C. case No. 48 of 2020 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Hooghly, under Sections 417/376/406 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of Chinsurah Police Station Case No. 115 of 2019 dated 04.06.2019 including the order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Court.

The order dated 25.03.2021 relate to the order of framing of charges against the present petitioner under Section 417/376/406 of the Indian Penal Code wherein the learned Trial Court read over the charges and the accused/petitioner in response pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the accused/petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the First Information Report (along with the letter of complaint), charge-sheet and the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was submitted that the petitioner is aged about 46 years, divorced with a girl child aged about 12 years and the de facto complainant/lady is aged about 37 years with also a girl child of 12 years and her divorce case is pending before the jurisdictional Court. According to the learned Advocate even if the allegations made in the FIR, charge-sheet and all the documents relied upon by the prosecution as a whole are accepted in its entirety the same fails to make out any case and the learned Trial Court erroneously framed charges against the petitioner under Section 417/376/406 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to substantiate his argument learned Advocate relied upon Prasanta Bharti –Vs. – State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013) 9 SCC 293; Pramod Suryabhan Pawar – Vs. – State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 and Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar –Vs. – State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 18 SCC 191.

On the other hand Ms. Nandita Baksi learned Advocate appearing for the de facto complainant/opposite party submitted that the victim was allured by the accused with a proposal to marry, to that effect the relevant part of the FIR was emphasized and the accused by his conduct made arrangements thereby developing confidence which prompted the victim to leave her service and shift her residence from her parental home to the house of the accused. Learned Advocate drew the attention of the Court to the contents of the FIR and the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein it has been contended that the accused at Kalighat Temple married the complainant by applying vermilion on her forehead. It was submitted that accused by his act tempted the de facto complainant to perform all the duties of a wife as such the charges under Section 417/376 of the Indian Penal Code are made out. Thus, according to the learned Advocate the accused after enjoying the lady threw her away and as such he must be asked to face the trial and prosecution be allowed to adduce its evidence as there are allegations also of criminal breach of trust.

Mr. Sandip Chakraborty learned Advocate appearing for the State produced the Case Diary and drew the attention of the Court to the FIR, statement of witnesses, medical evidences, an agreement made between the accused and the complainant, seizure lists as also the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was submitted on behalf of the State that as charge has already been framed the trial of the case should be taken to its logical conclusion.

In view of the contentions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the accused/petitioner, complainant/opposite party and the State, the FIR and the Statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be analysed to arrive at a finding regarding the legality of the charges so framed which is subject matter of the present revisional application.

The allegations in the FIR (which is the letter of co