THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.477 of 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by petitioner/accused No.1, before this Court challenging the judgment dated 22.08.2023 passed in Crl.MP.No.173 of 2023 in S.C.No.182 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the victim lodged a complaint alleging that Petitioner/Accused No.1 had gained her acquaintance and proposed love, leading to repeated sexual intercourse based on a promise of marriage. However, when the parents and brother of Petitioner/Accused No.1 (Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 4) came to know about the relationship, they initially agreed to perform the marriage during a Panchayat but later refused, with Petitioner/Accused No.1 also declining to marry the victim. Based on this complaint, a case was registered under sections 417, 420, and 376 of IPC against the petitioner and other accused. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Crl.MP.No.173 of 2023 in S.C.No.182 of 2022 praying to discharge him from the arraigned offences which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 22.08.2023 which is under challenge. Being aggrieved by dismissal of Crl.MP.No.173 of 2023, this Criminal Revision Case is preferred.

3. Heard Sri P.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for revision petitioner, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 – State. None appeared for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the failure of trial Court to appreciate the facts and evidence led to an unjust dismissal of the discharge petition filed by petitioner. He further submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are based on a consensual relationship, and the complainant's consent was not vitiated by any misconception of fact. He contended that the intention of petitioner to marry the complainant was genuine, and the failure to fulfill the promise was due to unforeseen circumstances. While placing reliance on precedents, he averred that a breach of promise to marry does not necessarily amount to cheating or rape. He highlighted the distinction between a false promise and a breach of promise, contending that the petitioner did not make a false promise with the intention of deceiving the complainant, and the complainant's allegations of rape are unfounded, as the relationship was consensual. Therefore, while advocating that the revision petitioner is innocent, and falsely implicated in the case, he prayed this Court to allow this revision case.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for revision petitioner, and contended that there are no illegalities or infirmities in the order passed by the trial Court and asserted that the discharge petition was rightly dismissed as the allegations leveled against the petitioner are of serious nature which require adjudication and that there are sufficient grounds to frame charges against the petitioner.

Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss this revision case.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the statement of complainant would show that she was in relationship with petitioner for a period of over two years and the petitioner proposed his love to complainant and promised to marry her and made physical relationship with her, however, it is alleged that thereafter, he refused to marry her and abandoned her. The allegations leveled against the petitioner are that initially the petitioner promised the complainant to marry her and under the said promise, he maintained physical relationship with her and later refused to marry her, whereas, the material on record would show that he refused to marry her due to fear of parents. That being so, it is imperative to note that to attr