The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

several orders right from registration of the complaint on

11.02.2011 and all subsequent orders passed by the concerned

court. The petition is filed on 16.02.2022. What drives the

petitioner to this Court after ten years of pendency of the

proceedings is an order passed by the learned Magistrate on

07.11.2019 committing the case to the Sessions Court on

inclusion of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the

IPC in terms of his order dated 01.10.2019. Therefore, only the

- 3 -

orders dated 01.10.2019 and 07.11.2019 merit consideration

for the present as all other orders that are now challenged

proceedings of which are at advanced stage of trial before the

trial Court.

2. Heard Sri P.N. Manmohan, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, Smt K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent and

Sri

B.Sanjay

Yadav,

learned

counsel

appearing

for

respondent No.2.

3. Sans details, facts in brief are as follows:-

The 2^nd respondent is the complainant and at the relevant

point in time, she was housed at the first floor of the premises

in which the petitioner and his wife were residing on the ground

floor. A complaint was registered by the 2^nd respondent on

11.02.2021 in Crime No.61 of 2011 for offences punishable

under Sections 354, 406 and 420 of the IPC. The allegation in

the complaint was that from 03-03-2007 to 26.04.2010 the

petitioner had physical relationship with the complainant on the

promise of marriage and had breached the said promise of

marriage and had certain financial transactions between them.

- 4 -

Certain proceedings were also taken up by the 2^nd respondent

before the concerned Court invoking Section 12 of the Domestic

Violence Act as well on the ground that the petitioner and the

2^nd respondent had in fact lived like husband and wife though

they were not. These issues are not the concern in the case at

hand.

4. A charge sheet was filed by the Police on 30-11-2012

in Crime No.61 of 2011 for offences punishable under Sections

406, 420 r/w 34 of the IPC. The contents of the charge were

what was alleged in the complaint. Section 354 of the IPC

which was initially alleged was dropped and the trial went on.

The petitioner filed a revision petition in Criminal Revision

Petition No.359 of 2013 seeking his discharge which came to be

rejected. A criminal appeal was filed against the said order of

rejection of charge which also came to be dismissed on 1-08-

2016. Things standing thus, on 1-10-2019 the prosecution

filed an application for alteration of charge under Section 323 of

the Cr.P.C. for inclusion of offence punishable under Section

375 and 376 of the IPC. The ground on which alteration of

charge was sought was while the complainant was tendering

her evidence she narrates the circumstances which disclosed

- 5 -

that both the petitioner and the complainant had sexual

intercourse on several occasions on consensus. Based upon this

the application is filed. The learned Magistrate considering the

application passed an order altering the charge on 1-10-2019

and posted the matter for passing committal order on

7-10-2021 and on 7-11-2019 commits the matter to the

learned Sessions Judge in view of the cognizance being taken

against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section

376 of the IPC. It is challenging this order passed under Section

323 of the Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.24142 of 2012 and the order of

committal dated 7-11-2019 is what is called in question in the

subject writ petition.

5. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The

statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner merits

acceptance as a consensual sexual intercourse between the

petitioner and the complainant from 2007 to 2011 could not

have become an offence under Section 376 in the year 2019 for

such consensual acts. Initially offence under Section 376 IPC

was not what was alleged. On the basis of the evidence

tendered by the complainant, Sect