SAURAV SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC is directed against the order passed by learned 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Special Session Trial No.405/2015 dated 22.6.2015, whereby the learned ASJ found that prima facie, case is made out against the present applicant for framing of charge under section 376(2) (N) of IPC.

(2.) RELEVANT facts giving rise to this revision arc that the prosecutrix was residing in Prateek Apartmant. Flat No. 102, first floor, Indore. On 15.1.2014. she came in contact with the present applicant through facebook on Internet. The present applicant proposed her for marriage on which, the prosecutrix repiled that the present applicant should talk to her family members, on 27.5.2014, the present applicant came to Indore at her residence in Prateek Apartment and he talked to her elder sister Sapna, brother Pramod Sharma and mother Sharda Sharma. They all agreed for marriage of the prosecutrix to the present applicant. Thereafter, all her family members went to the present applicant. Thereafter, all her family members went to Gwalior, but the present applicant stayed in Indore and he stayed in the residence of the prosecutrix. There, he fulfilled some rituals of marriage and then, he remained with her for 10 -12 days, and there, it is alleged that under the promise of regular marriage, he had physical relationship with the prosecutrix. Thereafter, he called her to Delhi. She went to Delhi, and there, she stayed in Ora International Hotel. New Delhi, and there also, the present applicant had physical relationship with; On 9.12.2014 he refused to marry the prosecutrix and thereafter, a report was lodged.

(3.) THIS revision is filed against the order of framing of charge on the ground that having physical relationship under the false promise of marriage is not the rape under section 375 of IPC. She was called to Delhi and she went to Delhi and as per the allegation, the present applicant has physical relationship with her at Delhi. This also does not come with in the definition of rape under section 375 of IPC. In her MI ,C. no definite opinion may be given regarding rape. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the present applicant has not committed any offence under section 376(2) (n) of IPC.