JUDGMENT :

In S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2057/2018 :-

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident is of the year 2005-06 when the prosecutrix was studying in 12th class at Udaipur and she came into contact with the present petitioner. The prosecutrix submitted that she and the present petitioner belonged to the same caste and when she asked the petitioner to marry her, to which he refused, but they continued to live together. As per prosecutrix, the petitioner raped her from 2005-06 to 2017 and in these 11 years, she got pregnant several times, but resorted to choosing to get abortions done. The prosecutrix alleges that she was exploited by the present petitioner, who allegedly had been promising marriage for 12 years.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335. The relevant part of the above mentioned judgment reads as under :-

“105. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”"

3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent oppose the petition, but are unable to refute the aforesaid factual matrix.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

5. This Court takes into consideration the following judgments as rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court;

6. Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4