JUDGMENT

Pankaj Bhandari, J. - The petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition aggrieved by order dated 26.11.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities Cases) No. 1, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 388/2018, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner under Section 376 of India Penal Code.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that a missing person report was lodged by sister of the prosecutrix on 06.09.2017 at 19:44 PM, reporting missing of her sister since 05.09.2017. Prosecutrix returned back on 08.09.2017, her statement was recorded by the police wherein she mentioned that she went on her own to Ajmer, she called up her sisters fiance Shubham and then Shubham had brought her from Ajmer. Prosecutrix herself and her mother on the same day gave a letter to the SHO that they do not want to proceed with the missing person report. The missing person report was then closed on 09.11.2017. On the same day prosecutrix filed the present FIR bearing No. 558/2017 at 9:40 PM. On 18.09.2017, prosecutrix submitted an affidavit to the Police, which was signed by the prosecutrix and her mother to the effect that she does not want to proceed with her FIR No. 558/2017. On the next date i.e. 19.09.2017, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she alleged that petitioner was having relationship with her on the pretext that he would marry her and threatened the prosecutrix that if she does not agree to the relationship he would get her removed from service. FIR was also lodged by father of the petitioner on 28.09.2017 bearing FIR No. 604/2017 alleging that the prosecutrix her sisters fiance Shubham and mother of prosecutrix are blackmailing his son and demanding Rs. 60 lacs. In the FIR lodged by father of the petitioner. Police arrested Shubham and has already submitted charge-sheet. Offence was found to be made out against the prosecutrix as well. However, the matter was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. against the prosecutrix as prosecutrix was not traceable.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the fact of filing of affidavit was in the notice of the Investigating Officer, who has submitted the charge-sheet. It is contended that from the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is revealed that prosecutrix was in relationship with the petitioner, in the affidavit submitted by her before the police, she had specifically deposed that petitioner had never given her any assurance that he would marry her. It is contended that since the affidavit is part of the record and is admittedly given by the prosecutrix after lodging of the present FIR. The same ought to have been considered by the Court before framing charge.

4. Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on 2013 (3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1097 Satvinder Pal Kaur @ Sonia v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. , Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 1443 of 2018 decided by the Apex Court on 22.11.2018, Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SC Cases 46 , Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675 and (2017) 1 RCR (Criminal) 715 Akshay Manoj Jaisinghani v. State of Maharashtra .

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that as per the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse on the misconception that petitioner would marry her.

6. I have considered the contentions, the Apex Court in Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra) referred to Vineet Kumar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2017) 13 SCC 369 , wherein the Apex Court observed as under:-

"Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cann