The main legal point established is the requirement for a prima facie case and the judicial duty to weigh the evidence before framing charges, especially in cases involving false promise of marriage and vitiation of consent.

ORDER

Subramonium Prasad, J. - This petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the Order dated 08.03.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/SFTC - 2 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Case No. 436/2020 arising out of FIR No. 319/2019 dated 10.11.2019 registered at P.S. Paharganj for offences under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC"), framing charges against the Petitioner for offences under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.

2. Facts, in brief, leading up to the instant petition are as follows:

a) It is stated that the Petitioner had extended a false promise of marriage to the prosecutrix on the basis of which he had sustained a physical relationship with her. The prosecutrix and the Petitioner were engaged, and the wedding was postponed due to some issues in the family of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, arguments arose about the date of marriage as well as the financial condition of the prosecutrix. It is stated that the prosecutrix requested the Petitioner to marry her by way of court marriage or in an Arya Samaj temple, and this request was rejected by the Petitioner.

b) It is stated that the Petitioner and his family would quibble with the prosecutrix with regard to her way of living and her lifestyle, and other trivial matters, in order to put an end to the marriage. The prosecutrix has alleged that the issues were being raised by the Petitioner and his family due to the fact that the prosecutrix was not financially well-off, and that the Petitioner wanted to marry a girl whose father would have the wherewithal to invest money in his marriage. On the basis of this complaint, the instant FIR was registered under Section 376(2)(n) IPC against the Petitioner.

c) Vide Order dated 28.01.2020, this Court granted anticipatory bail to the Petitioner herein. Chargesheet was filed on 19.08.2020, and vide Order dated 08.03.2021, the Ld. Trial framed charges against the Petitioner under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant revision petition.

3. Mr. Badar Mahmood, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner and the prosecutrix were involved in a serious relationship and that physical relations between the two had never taken place. He states that despite the incompatibility between the two, the Petitioner was in love with the prosecutrix and intended to settle down with her. Mr. Mahmood states that a roka ceremony had also taken place between the Petitioner and the prosecutrix, and that the instant matter is merely a case of a relationship that has ended on bad terms.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the prosecutrix would constantly fight with the Petitioner and taunt him about his profession as well as his financial capacity. He states that the prosecutrix insisted on the wedding ceremony being held at a venue which was too expensive for the Petitioner to finance, and due to this, the marriage between the two was put off which led to the parents of the Petitioners being forced to face a very embarrassing position.

5. Mr. Mahmood brings to the attention of this Court that the prosecutrix and her family threatened the Petitioner and his family that if they did not get the Petitioner married to the prosecutrix immediately, they would file false cases of rape and suicide against them. As a result, the Petitioner and his father immediately filed a complaint dated 11.11.2019 with SHO, North Rohini, Delhi. He states that they were later on made aware that FIR No. 319/2019 dated 10.11.2019 was registered at P.S. Paharganj.

6. With regard to the impugned Order dated 08.03.2021, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case and has mechanically framed charges against the Petitioner under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. Mr. Mahmood submits that the disclosure statement