The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of unequivocal voluntary agreement in the victim's consent, the absence of fear or misconception, and the impact of the promise of marriage on the allegations of rape.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Revision is preferred against the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No.478 of 2022, whereby the application for discharge of the petitioner under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been rejected.

2. The brief facts leading to this Criminal Revision are that an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved on behalf of the petitioner-accused before the learned trial Court in S.T. No.478 of 2022 (State Vs. Sukesh Kumar) under Section 376 (2) (n), 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro on these grounds that from the very allegations made in the FIR, since no ingredients under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which is punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, no offence is made out against the petitioner. As per the FIR allegations, the victim was major, her date of birth was of 1996. Even on the alleged date of occurrence in the year 2018, the victim was major. As per the allegations made by the victim herself, the relations between them were consensual. Even if the allegations made in the FIR were taken to be correct, on the basis of the same, no offence is made out against the petitioner-accused. There is no mens rea on the part of the petitioner to play any fraud upon the complainant-victim in regard to obtain her consent on the alleged pretext of marriage. In view of the above, prayed to discharge the petitioner-accused.

3. The learned trial Court passed the order dated 27.04.2023, whereby the application of the petitioner for discharge was rejected.

4. Aggrieved from this impugned order dated 27.04.2023, this Criminal Revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. From the First Information Report, it transpires that both the parties were major and friendship was developed between them and ultimately in love affairs physical relations have also been established and continued for a long period, as such, no offence under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Even if the prosecution story, restatement of the informant as well the statement of her parents was taken to be correct same does not establish the offence of rape against the petitioner. The chats of the WhatsApp and photographs do not constitute any offence under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the above, urged to allow this Criminal Revision and set aside the impugned order and discharge the petitioner from the charges levelled against him.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 at length and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is the settled propositions of law that while disposing the discharge application, the Court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the FIR and also the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. If from the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, the alleged offence against any accused is made out to proceed with the trial against him, the Court should decline from discharging the accused. If the Court is of definite opinion that no alleged offence is made out from the allegations made in the FIR as well as from the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, the Court should not decline from discharging the accused. At the same time, it is also the settled propositions of law that while framing the charge, the Court cannot appreciate or scrutinize the evidence on record, the appreciation of evidence, minute scrutiny of evidence or marshalling of evidence is not permissible at the time of framing charge.

7. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the informant-victim gave the written statement with the police station