The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between rape and consensual sex, the significance of consent, and the impact of false promises of marriage on consent, as well as the need for evidence to show the accused's intention regarding the promise to marry.

JUDGMENT :

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. On 14/05/2019, Shri Ram Pathak, Ms. Nimisha Pathak and Shri Jamnesh Gupta, Advocates have filed their Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No. 2. From the order sheets of this Court, it is clear that on 01/08/2019 Shri Ram Pathak, Advocate had appeared for the respondent No. 2 and since the Case Diary was not available, therefore, the case was adjourned. Thereafter, on subsequent dates, none appeared for the respondent No. 2. Today, none appears for respondent No. 2 even in pass over round.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the State.

3. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No. 103/2018 registered at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 376, 323 of IPC as well as quashment of all consequential criminal proceedings.

4. On 09/08/2019, the petitioner filed IA No. 6234 of 2019 for filing the copy of the charge sheet. From the charge sheet, it appears that the same was prepared and filed before the Court below on 07/07/2018, whereas this petition was filed on 02/07/2018. Thus, it is clear that the charge sheet was filed during pendency of this petition.

5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that since the charge sheet has been filed during the pendency of this petition, therefore, in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Satish Mehra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 13 SCC 614, Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Another passed in CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1395 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3730 of 2016] by judgment dated 15th November, 2018 and the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ravikant Dubey and Others Vs. State of M.P. and another reported in 2014 Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 162, this petition can be decided on merits.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Satish Mehra (supra) has held as under:-

"13. Though a criminal complaint lodged before the court under the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure or an FIR lodged in the police station under Chapter XII of the Code has to be brought to its logical conclusion in accordance with the procedure prescribed, power has been conferred under Section 482 of the Code to interdict such a proceeding in the event the institution/continuance of the criminal proceeding amounts to an abuse of the process of court. An early discussion of the law in this regard can be found in the decision of this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab wherein the parameters of exercise of the inherent power vested by Section 561-A of the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973) had been laid down in the following terms: (AIR p. 869, para 6)

(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice;

(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding e.g. want of sanction;

(iii) where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and

(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

14. The power to interdict a proceeding either at the threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is inherent in a High Court on the broad principle that in case the allegations made in the FIR or the criminal complaint, as may be, prima facie do not disclose a triable offence, there can be reason as to why the accused should be made to suffer the agony of a legal proceeding that more often than not gets protracted. A prosecution which is boun