Consent obtained through a false promise of marriage negates its validity, establishing grounds for rape under Sections 375 and 376(2)(n) IPC.

ORDER :

Prem Narayan Singh, J.

1. Present revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2022 passed in ST No.400/2021 by 8th Additional Session Judge and Special Judge (EOW), Indore whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and framed the charges against the petitioners under Section 376 (2)(n) of IPC.

2 . According to the prosecution story, an application has been submitted on 10.02.2021 at Police station Lasudiya, Indore by the complainant/prosecutrix by submitting that she is living in Indore since 2017 and worked as a Architect designer, since 2018 she is working at lotus company, she met with the applicant Inderjeet, they become good friends and like each others. Inderjeet told her that he like her and wants to liver with her and in the Month of January, 2019, he made physical relationship till December 2020 on the pretext of marriage. She always asked him for marriage but he ignored her. She tried to leave him, but he could not made it possible. Thereafter, she has also asked about some other in his life but, he refused the same then she has stated that they have already made physical relations and she loved her and cannot live without him and she has no option except suicide if he left her. Thereafter, on 05.02.2021 he was going to marry with his girl friend Gitika Israni as he was her since 2015. As such, petitioner Inderjeet has made physical relations with her even after having relations with another lady and cheated her. On the basis of said complaint, the police has registered the FIR against the applicant under Section 366-A, 376, 376(2)(n) of IPC.

3. Thereafter, vide the impugned order, the the learned trial Court has dismissed the application of the applicant filed under Section 227 of IPC and charges under Sections 376 (2)(n) of IPC was framed by the learned trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by learned judge is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record. It is also submitted that the FIR registered against the applicant under Section 376 of IPC is bad in law and prima facie requirement given in the definition provided under Section 375 of IPC is not fulfilled as there is no apprehension of their marriage on the facts of the case. it is also submitted that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and they both live together for a long period. It is further submitted that the cognizance as well as the charges framed against the applicant are irrelevant. It is submitted that no evidence has been submitted by the complainant in support of her complainant. It is further submitted that the learned trial has committed grave error of law in not considering the fact that the prosecutrix was a consenting party, she has not given any evidence even no dates of offence have been provided. The complaint is afterthought and completely based on the concocted story. There is no incriminating circumstances against the applicant, but the learned trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application of the petitioner and framed the charges against him. Hence, prays for setting aside the same.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Prashant Bharti vs. State of NCT of Delhi AIR 2013 SC 2753 , Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State