A prolonged consensual relationship undermines claims of rape based on a false promise of marriage, and insufficient evidence precludes charges under the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court)has filed the present revision against the order dated 28.6.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Rape/POCSO), Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the charges were ordered to be framed against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2) (n) and 417 read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are that the informant (name being withheld to protect her identity) was studying with the accused. The accused visited the informant’s house. He and his mother settled the marriage between the accused and the informant in the year 2014. It was agreed that the marriage would be solemnised after 2-3 years because the petitioner’s family was constructing a house. The petitioner and the informant remained in touch. The informant was to take an examination in 2015 at Shimla. The accused offered to accompany her to Shimla. Both of them stayed in the hotel. The accused forced the informant to maintain sexual relations with him. The betrothal ceremony was solemnised between the accused and the informant. The informant went to the house of the accused, where his parents asked her to appear in a competitive examination to get a good job. She went to Chandigarh for coaching. The accused used to visit her at Chandigarh. He took her to a hotel and maintained physical relations with her. The mother of the accused called the informant after one and a half months to select the ornaments. She left the home. The accused and the informant were alone in the home. The accused asked her to establish physical relations with her. When she refused, the accused gave her beatings. The marriage was to be solemnised on 28.2.2017, but could not be solemnised due to some mishap in the family of the petitioner. The accused was transferred to Gwalior, and this fact was not revealed to the informant. The informant revealed her physical relationship with the accused to his family members. They abused her. The accused admitted physical relationship with the informant. The parents of the accused assured to get them married in 2019. The date of marriage was postponed to 2020-21. The informant’s mother and Up-Pradhan went to the house of the accused. The family members of the accused demanded Rs.5.00 lacs and a vehicle. The victim’s father sold his land located at Kala Amb to meet the demand of the accused. The matter was reported to the police. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. It was found after the investigation that the accused had constructed their house after taking a loan of Rs.27,90,000/-. The result of the analysis did not show any blood or semen on the material objects collected by the police; however, human blood was detected on the informant’s blood sample, and human semen was detected on the smegma slide of the accused. It was found after the investigation that the accused was not serious about the marriage. He made a false promise to marry the informant and maintained sexual relations with her. The parents of the accused demanded dowry of Rs.5.00 lacs and a vehicle; therefore, the charge sheet was filed before the Court.

3. Learned Trial Court framed a charge against the accused Raj Kumar for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Being aggrieved from the order framing the charges, the petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in framing the charges. There was no material in the charge sheet justifying the framing of charges. The victim was 30 years old, well-read, mat