The promise to marry cannot justify consent to sexual relations if proven false; each case's uniqueness must be examined to assess consent's legitimacy.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)--The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner assailing the order dated 07.04.2021 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (SFTC-01), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in SC No. 127/21 arising out of FIR No. 265/2020 registered under Section 376 IPC at Police Station Ranjit Nagar, Delhi, whereby application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge in the aforesaid case was disposed of and charges under Sections 376(2)(n)/417 IPC framed against him.

2. Briefly stated, the facts, as noted by the Trial Court, are as under:

"02. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was made by Ms. "A" to the effect that she had come to Delhi for preparation of competitive exam, came in contact with accused. In October, 2015 accused expressed interest in entering into physical relations with her, she conveyed her reluctance. The accused continuously also conveyed his intention of promise to marry. On believing his words complainant accepted the proposal and decided to enter into physical relations with the accused. She shifted her residence and even then the accused would visit her on or off, maintaining his promise of marriage. The accused had even met the parents of the complainanat and conveyed his intention to marry, however, in September, 2019 accused conveyed to the complainant that he had no intention to marry her. On 24th September, 2019 the complainant's parents went to the house of accused to discuss the proposal of marriage but could not meet the parents of the accused or the accused. She received a call from the brother of the accused who told her that accused did not have intention to marry her and therefore, they should not contact and communicate with them. On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant FIR u/s 376 IPC was registered at the PS Ranjit Nagar. After registration of the FIR charge-sheet was filed against the accused".

3. Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the alleged false promise to marry, stated to have been given by the petitioner, had no direct/immediate nexus with the decision of the prosecutrix to engage in the sexual act. He further submits that the prosecutrix is aged over 30 years and being a well-educated lady, she could not have had any misconception of facts. He also submits that there was a delay in reporting of the incident and registration of the FIR. As per her own complaint, the prosecutrix came in contact with the petitioner somewhere in the year 2015 and came to know of his decision not to marry her on 25.09.2019, however, the FIR came to be registered only on 07.07.2020, i.e. after a delay of about 10 months.

4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand reported as (2020) 10 SCC 108, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Another reported as (2019) 9 SCC 608, Uday v. State of Karnataka reported as (2003) 4 SCC 46 and Chandan Sawhney v. State reported as MANU/DE/0452/2020.

5. Mr. Hirein Sharma, learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer made in the petition and supported the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. It is submitted that the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix in the present case are clear that the petitioner established physical relations with her on the false pretext of marriage. It is further submitted that the petitioner's dishonest intention is apparent from the fact that he denied to