The petitioner has filed this Criminal Original Petition praying to quash the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.118 of 2010 before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Ulundurpet for an offence under Sections 417 and 493 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Thiallainayaki, D/o. Kannan of Iruvelpatty Colony was fallen in love with the petitioner herein who was working in abroad and used to come to the village once in 6 months. At that time the above said Thiallainayaki, the defacto complainant was studying B.A., 1st year at Govt. Arts College, Villupuram. During their meeting, the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the 2nd respondent herein by promising to marry her after her studies were over. Thereafter, the petitioner herein by throwing his promise on air, arranged for marriage with some other lady and the same was arranged by the parents of the petitioner herein.

3. On coming to know about the marriage arrangement of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent police. Originally the said complaint was registered for the offence under Sections 417 and 376 of IPC and after investigation, the offences were altered and final report was filed for the offences under Sections 417 and 376 of IPC challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this quash petition.

4. I heard Mr. R.C. Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B. Ramesh Babu, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the 1st respondent and entire material records are perused. There is no representation for the 2nd respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced his arguments that except the defacto complainant no other witnesses supported the case of the prosecution which itself would falsify the case of the 2nd respondent herein. The learned counsel further submitted that a reading of Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of the defacto complainant does not disclose the offence under Section 493 of IPC. The allegation made by the defacto complainant to attract the offence under Section 417 is very vague.

6. Whereas the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would contend that all the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. would clearly attract the commission of offence by the petitioner herein for an offence punishable under Sections 417 and 493 of IPC. From the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. this Court could see that the accused promised the de-facto complainant to marry her and in the plea she had consented for sexual intercourse on many times with the accused. But he failed to keep up the promise and his parents arranged for marriage with some other girl. All the statements of the witnesses have corroborated each other with regard to the above said facts. Therefore there is no ground to quash the charge sheet laid against the petitioner herein by the 1st respondent police. The commission of offence by the petitioner herein would come into the light only after the completion of the trial. Hence there is no scope for quashment of the above proceedings and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have carefully gone through the entire charge sheet including the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. From a close reading of the statements recorded by the prosecutrix, it is easily discernible that only with her consent every sexual intercourse has been done.

8. The only point urged on the side of the prosecution is that since the petitioner herein/accused has given promise of marrying the 2nd respondent herein had sexual intercourse, due to misconception, the 2nd respondent herein has given her consent for having sexual intercourse.

9. As per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must be consistent evidence for the purpose of showing that from very inception, the petitioner herein has never really intended to marry the 2nd respondent herein. In the instant c