A consensual sexual relationship cannot be construed as rape under Section 376 of IPC solely due to a subsequent breach of a promise to marry, unless it is proven that the promise was false at its inception and acted as the sole inducement for the victim's consent.

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (FILED U/S 438 BNSS) BY THE SPP FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-II, MANDYA IN S.C.NO.113/2021 AND DISCHARGING THE ACCUSED U/S 376, 420, 506 OF IPC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader. None appears for respondent though served with notice of revision petition.

2. Respondent is the accused, who has been discharged by the Court of learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge – FTSC-II, Mandya in SC No.113/2021 by order dated 06.01.2024, whereby application filed under Section 227 of Cr.PC by the accused is allowed. State has preferred the present revision petition challenging the validity of the said order dated 06.01.2024.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

3.1. A complaint came to be lodged by the victim lady stating that respondent/accused, with a promise to marry, had forcible sexual intercourse with her and thereby he has committed offence punishable under Sections 376, 420 and 506 IPC.

4. Police after registering the case, thoroughly investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused. On receipt of the charge sheet, the learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance and committed the matter to the Sessions Court for trial. The presence of the accused was secured before the Sessions Court.

5. Accused-respondent filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.PC contending that, there was no forcible sexual intercourse, and the physical relationship between the accused and the victim lady was consensual in nature and therefore, he is to be discharged. It was also contended, that victim lady has not stated about the forceful sexual intercourse nor there was any promise before the sexual act, nor there was any threat or inducement and as such, no charges can be framed against him for the alleged offences.

6. Prosecution opposed the said application and learned Session Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the discharge application inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.12 to 14 as under:

“12. The learned counsel for accused referred citations reported in:

200015/2014 between Basanna and others vs State Through Women P.S, Gulbarga, where the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka opined that

"the petitioner moved an application U/sec.482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the final report. But since the final report is filed, it is opined to plead for discharge U/sec.227 of Cr.P.C".

2019(4) Crimes 487 SC (Supreme Court of India) between Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs State of Maharashtra and another,

" Section 482 Exercising of inherent jurisdiction Section 482 is an overriding section which saves the inherent powers of the court to advance the cause of justice- Under Section 482 inherent jurisdiction of the court can be exercised (i) to give effect to an order under the Cr.PC; (ii) to prevent abuse of process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice- Powers of court under Section 482 are wide and court is vested with a significant amount of discretion to decide whether or not to exercise them - Court should be guarded in use of its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash an FIR or criminal proceeding as it denies the prosecution opportunity to establish its case through investigation and evidence.

To establish a false promise, maker of the promis