Protracted sexual relationship under false promise of marriage prima facie constitutes rape if deception existed from inception.

The Petitioner (accused) and Opposite Party No. 2 (prosecutrix) were in a relationship from 2014 to 2020.

The prosecutrix alleged that the Petitioner established a physical relationship with her on the pretext of a promise to marry.

After the Petitioner fled and married another woman in 2021, the prosecutrix filed a complaint leading to an FIR under Sections 376(2)(n) (rape on the same woman repeatedly) and 417 (cheating) of the IPC.

The Petitioner moved an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court, arguing the relationship was consensual and the failure to marry was due to family opposition, not deceit.

The Trial Court rejected the discharge application on 06.10.2023, which is the subject of this revision.

1. Whether the materials on record prima facie establish a case of rape under the misconception of fact (false promise of marriage) or if the relationship was merely a consensual one followed by a breach of promise.

2. Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.

The Court primarily applied the principles of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the discharge of an accused, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979), which mandates that a judge must sift and weigh evidence only to determine if a prima facie case exists, rather than conducting a full trial.

Regarding the substantive charge of rape based on a false promise of marriage, the Court considered the distinction between a "breach of promise" and a "false promise from inception" (misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC), referencing Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019).

The Court observed that the prosecutrix's allegations—specifically that the Petitioner maintained a sexual relationship for years and reneged on his promise even after a formal conciliation at the Mahila Police Station—prima facie suggested the promise was deceitful from the outset.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that the relationship was purely consensual or that the marriage failed due to family opposition, noting that such claims constitute a "defense plea".

Under the Prafulla Kumar Samal guidelines, the Judge is not a "Post Office" but must assess if "grave suspicion" exists; here, the Court found the materials sufficient to proceed to trial.

It held that a meticulous examination of the defense's version is impermissible at the stage of framing charges.

Furthermore, since charges had already been framed and witnesses examined during the pendency of the revision, the petition was deemed devoid of merit. The Criminal Revision was dismissed.