IMPORTANT POINT
The distinction between consensual sexual relations and rape based on a breach of promise to marry was established, emphasizing that consent obtained under a misconception does not automatically invalidate the consent if the relationship was consensual over time.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH CHAND, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special P.P. for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 18th August, 2023 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XXI, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2402 of 2023, whereby the discharge petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

3. The brief facts leading to this criminal revision are that the informant-victim had given the written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that accused Navin Kumar came in her contact for the first time in August, 2018 in a birthday party near Radisson Blue Hotel, Ranchi. Thereafter, the said accused began to meet her. One day when she was alone at her house, he came to her house at New Alkapuri, Doranda and raped her. On her weeping he assured that he would marry her. After few days of that occurrence he took her on the pretext to introduce her to his mother in a street in front of Pantaloon, Dangratoli, where he also raped her. He also clicked her photographs. Many times he took her to his house and also told to his family members at the house that he would marry her. He also took her to different hotels and in a room of Mapplewood he sexually exploited her. Occasionally she opposed the said act of accused. In the meantime she also became pregnant. Ultrasound was also done and a fetus of four and half months was confirmed in her womb. On 29th September, 2020 in Laxmi Nursing Home the accused after having put vermilion on the head of victim got abortion done. Still thereafter the accused continued to sexually exploit her and again she became pregnant. He again took her to the doctor, where doctor refused for termination of the pregnancy and the accused after having put vermilion on the forehead of the victim took her to Santevita Hospital posed her to be his wife and the abortion was done on 6th July, 2021. On 30th December, 2021 he took her to Calcutta and told that he would marry her in Kali Mandir and there also he continued to establish physical relation with her in a hotel and ultimately came back to Ranchi without solemnization of marriage in January, 2022. Doubt was created in the mind of the informant and she came to know that the accused had got married on 9th December, 2020 with one Madhu Sahu. When the victim asked the accused in regard to previous marriage he criminally intimidated her and told that he would make all the photographs viral on social media. He also got her signature on several papers on the pretext of marriage. He had cheated her and raped her and the fetus in her womb were also aborted.

4. On this written information, Doranda Sadar P.S. Case No. 107 of 2022 was registered under Sections 417, 376 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Navin Kumar @ Navin Sahu.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the allegations made in the F.I.R. which was lodged by the victim herself she came in contact of the petitioner for the first time in August, 2018 and she lodged the F.I.R. after lapse of about four years on 4th May, 2022. As per admission of the informant/victim in the year 2022 she was 26 years old, as such in the year 2018 she was major being 22 years old and from the allegations made in the F.I.R. she was consenting party and she was aware with all the facts in regard to the petitioner. The petitioner never cheated her, even the abortions were also done with her consent, as per allegations made in the F.I.R. itself. Therefore, no alleged offence is made out against the petitioner.

7. On behalf of the State, learned Spl. P.P. and on behalf of the informant learned private counsel opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that certainly the petitioner was major but the petit