ROBIN SETHI Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 12.01.2013 filed in case FIR No.95/2012 dated 15.03.2012, under Sections 376/312/506/34 IPC at Police Station: Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 31.08.2013 whereby, charges have been framed against him by the learned ASJ under Sections 376/506 IPC.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner states that while framing the order on charge, the Sessions Court had erred inasmuch as it had failed to take into consideration the fact that there was no evidence on record to show that the petitioner had indulged in any act that could result in holding him guilty for the offence under Sections 376/506 IPC. Rather, a perusal of the entire allegations levelled against the petitioner would reveal that the complainant is a mature lady and she was not under any misconception of facts and nor had the petitioner extended any false promise of marriage to her. He submits that the physical relationship that had blossomed between the parties was voluntary in nature and now the prosecutrix is trying to wreak a revenge on the petitioner for a failed romance. In support of his submission that there was no misconception in the mind of the prosecutrix as contemplated under Section 90 of the IPC and a mere belief that the promise of marriage was going to be fulfilled, cannot be treated as a misconception of fact, learned counsel relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Uday vs. State of Karnataka, 2003 4 SCC 46. He also refers to the decision in the case of Shri Goutam Prasadi vs. State of Tripura, 2012 3 GLD 626 to contend that in the absence of any deception or misrepresentation or allurement at the time of committing sexual intercourse, it cannot be urged that the consent was given by the prosecutrix under any misconception of facts.

(3.) Learned APP for the State opposes the present petition and supports the impugned order on charge by submitting that the Sessions Court had carefully examined the case set up by the prosecution on the basis of a complaint lodged by the prosecutrix and the material gathered in the course of the investigation. He states that though the prosecution had named six persons as accused and the said list had included the petitioner, his parents, two brothers and a sister-in-law, the trial court had found that there was no evidence available against the accused No.2 to 6 for allegedly aiding the petitioner herein (accused No.1) in establishing a physical relationship with the prosecutrix on a false pretext of marriage and as a result, the said accused No.2 to 6 had been discharged. However, upon considering the material placed on record by the State, the Sessions Court was of the opinion that the petitioner ought to be charged for the offence punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC. Learned APP urges that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to take a preliminary view on the basis of the evidence placed before it and since there was enough material brought on record against the petitioner, the learned ASJ had proceeded to pass an order on charge against him.