JUDGMENT :

Tirthankar Ghosh, J:

1. The present revisional application has been preferred challenging the continuance of Haroa Police Station Case No. 467/20 dated 31.12.2020 under Section 417/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the charge-sheet filed therein in connection with the said case.

2. The allegations made in the letter of complaint addressed to the Officer-in-charge, Haroa Police Station were to the effect that the complainant one Evanaz Parvin a resident of Rajarhat alleged that she had an affair with the accused Sohel Ashik who promised to marry her and took her to different places. The accused by promising to marry her, cohabitated for a considerable period of time. The accused also on a number of occasions took money through his friend from her and when the complainant pressurised him to marry her he blocked her phone number. The complainant pursued to connect with the accused when the accused abused her with derogatory and filthy languages, having no other option she requested the police authorities to take action against him.

3. The investigating authority on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet. The Investigating Officer relied upon 15 witnesses, out of the said fifteen witnesses, eight of the witnesses were the neighbours and acquaintance. The rest were two doctors and five police officials. In Course of investigation the statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Judicial Magistrate.

4. Mr. Lahiri, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations made in the letter of complaint which has been treated to be the First Information Report of the instant case is accepted at its face value along with the documents relied upon by the prosecution to prove its case is accepted to be true, the same fails to make out any offence, as in this case both of them were major and were having a consenting relationship. Learned Advocate drew the attention of the Court to the relevant part of the statement of the witnesses as also that of the complainant and prayed that the further continuance of the proceedings in the given set of facts as is divulged in the present proceedings should not be allow to continue and be quashed.

5. Mr. Kutubuddin, learned Advocate appearing for the State opposes such prayer and submits that from the very inception the accused not only promised to marry but also took money from the complainant. According to the learned Advocate the materials collected by the Investigating Agency portrayed a picture of a person who had the intention of cheating and using the complainant. Learned Advocate for the State produced the Case Diary and submitted that there is no scope for interference so far as the present case is concerned and the trial case must be taken to its logical conclusion.

6. In view of the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties, I have considered the statements of Amirul Mollah, Remon Khan, Habiba Bibi, Rejaul Karim, Mohibul Mollah, each of the witnesses have supported the version of the complainant and one of the witness stated that there was a relationship between the complainant and the accused and on or about 27.07.2020 he along with Ataur Rahaman, the accused Sohel and the complainant Evanaz had been to Hotel Red Stone and stayed overnight. Sohel and Evanaz stayed in a separate room. After some days their relationship deteriorated and the accused refused to marry the complainant. I have also taken into considerations the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the victim stated that initially she had friendship with the accused Sohel who proposed her, however, she refused such proposal, after some days both of them had been to a hotel where she met friend of Sohel and his girlfriend. There in a separate room the accused forced her for physical relationship, as a result of which thereafter she became attached to the accused S