IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL RC No.2402 of 2025 and CRL MP No.21628 of 2025 R. Nithish Kumar S/o.Ranganathan, No.42 D, Vethappar Street, Natham, Chengalpattu.

...Petitioner/Accused Vs

1. The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Chengalpattu.

2. S.Devika D/o.T.Selvam, Main Road, Keelakattur, Thiruvidaimaruthur Taluk, Tanjavur District - 609807.

(R2 is suo motu impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 18.11.2025 in Crl.RC.No.2402 of 2025 and Crl.MP.No.21628 of 2025)

...Respondents Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of B.N.S.S., to set aside the order dated 07.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2 of 2025 in S.C.No.236 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu.

For Petitioner: Mr.Christopher Vijayachandran For Respondents: Mr.R.Vinoth Raja Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

for R1 No Appearance for R2

ORDER

This Criminal Revision challenges the dismissal of the discharge petition filed by the petitioner/accused, who is facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC.”)

2 (a). The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused aged about

20 years, at the time of occurrence had a love affair with the de-facto complainant who was aged about 22 years at the time of the occurrence; that the petitioner had promised to marry the de-facto complainant and had sexual intercourse on several occasions between the period from 15.05.2019 to January 2020; that in the meanwhile, the de-facto complainant became pregnant; that the petitioner had given medicines to the de-facto complainant to abort the child; that thereafter, the petitioner promised to marry the de-facto complainant after four years; that the de-facto complainant waited for four years and when she approached the petitioner and his parents, the petitioner refused to marry the de-

facto complainant and thus, committed the aforesaid offences.

(b). On a complaint given by the de-facto complainant on 17.02.2024, a case was registered as C.S.R and subsequently registered as an FIR on 27.02.2024 in Crime No.3 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 of IPC. The respondent police, after conducting the investigation, had filed the Final Report against the petitioner for the offences under Sections

376(2)(n) and 313 of the IPC.

(c). The petitioner sought for discharge before the Trial Court on the ground that the statement of the witnesses and the evidence collected by the prosecution only suggest that it was a consensual affair between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant; that the alleged occurrences took place in the year 2020; that the complaint was lodged only in the year 2024; that the materials suggest that consent of the de-facto complainant was not obtained by fraud or any false representation; and considering the age of the petitioner and the de-

facto complainant, the alleged offences are not made out.

(e). The trial Judge, dismissed the said petition on the ground that there is prima facie material to show that the petitioner has obtained consent by false promise of marriage; and that in any case, the question of whether the consent was obtained by fraud or not cannot be adjudicated at the stage of the charge framing.

3(a). Mr.Christopher Vijayachandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, would submit that the alleged occurrences is said to have taken place in the year 2019 and 2020; that the petitioner was aged 20 years at the time of occurrence and the statements recorded by the investigating officer from the de-facto complainant and other witnesses would suggest that the relationship was consensual and the de-facto complainant was aware of the consequences of her act and her consent was not because of any alleged false promise of marriage even assuming that the petitioner has made such false promise