ORDER :—

The present petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the charge-sheet as well as consequential criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 95 of 2022 registered at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior for offences punishable under sections 376, 506 of IPC.

2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 22-2-2022 complainant- prosecutrix lodged a written complaint at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior alleging therein that in the year 2017, she was doing job in a private company, namely, Image Company at Saudagar Santar. Thereafter she came with contact of the petitioner who was also posted at Morar. On. 2nd of October, 2017, at about 06:00- 07:00 in the evening she came to Neeraj Hotel situated near the petrol pump, Padav with the petitioner. On giving a false pretext of marriage, the petitioner committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter the petitioner made physical relationship with her till 30th September, 2021. On the basis of such written complaint, FIR vide Crime No. 95 of 2022 has been registered against the petitioner. Statement of prosecutrix were recorded. After lodging the FIR, the petitioner was released on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 16-3-2022. After completion of investigation and other formalities, charge sheet has been filed by police.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant with mala fide intention just to take undue benefit. The complainant- prosecutrix is a major girl and she is known the petitioner from the last near about 05 years. She has made physical relationship with the petitioner on her own consent and free will. The prosecutrix was in relationship with petitioner over a significant period of time, therefore, consent of the prosecutrix is not obtained by misrepresentation. When the petitioner being married boy, refused to get married the prosecutrix, then just to take undue benefit she has lodged a false FIR. It is further submitted that the statement of prosecutrix was recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C., in which she has stated that the petitioner is known to her for the last five years i.e. since 2017 and if any woman continues to remain in physical relationship for a long period including visiting hotel, then it cannot be said that her consent was obtained by misconception of fact. To buttress his contentions, the counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 2071, Tilak Raj vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2016 SC 406, Uday vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and anr., (2019) 3 SCC (Cri.) 903, Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr. AIR 2021 SC 1405 as well as the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Senjeet Singh vs. State of M. P. and another, 2020(1) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 260, Abid Ali vs. State of M. P. and anr., passed on 18-5-2017 in M.Cr.C. No. 11363/2016 and a judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Lilani vs. State of M. P. and anr., passed on 18-7-2019 in M.Cr.C. No. 16158/2019 (Indore Bench) as well as the order dated 28th March, 2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Satendra Rathore vs. State of M. P. and another, passed in MCRC 45389 of 2021.

4. On the other hand, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State and submitted that if a girl has believed the promise made by the offender for a long period and continued with the physical relationship, then it cannot be said that her consent was not obtained by misconception of fact. From the statement of prosecutrix recorded under section 161 as well as 164 of Cr.P.C., it is clear that the petitioner on the false pretext of marriage has succeeded in developing relationship with prosecutrix by blackmailing her and therefore, consent give