JUDGMENT This is a revision against the order dated 28.7.97 of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Murwara framing a charge under sections 376, 493 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner. The proceedings started on the report of the prosecutrix made on 1.5.1996. The allegations were that the petitioner married the prosecutrix on 21.2.1996 in a temple. After the wedding he had sexual intercourse with her. But subsequently he denied the marriage and did not permit her to enter his house. The prosecutrix alleged that the accused had fraudulently gone through a ceremony of marriage and deceived her to consider herself as a lawfully married wife of the accused. He duped her and committed rape on her. In her statement under section 161 CrPC she alleged that the accused had sexual relations with her on 21.2.1996 against her will and without her consent, and continued to ravish her till 22nd March, 1996. Thereafter, he repudiated the marriage and stopped meeting her. She was beaten up and turned out of his house when she had gone there. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the prosecutrix was an adult women in her thirties. She was not an uneducated village woman who could be duped into a fraudulent marriage. She was a working woman, and well versed in law. She was infact working on the post of Additional Public Prosecutor in Maihar. The relationship was based on mutual consent and no case of rape or fraudulent marriage existed. The learned State counsel supported the order saying that the documents under section 173 CrPC made out a prima facie case for the charge. Having heard arguments on both sides and having perused the documents on record. We are of the view that this petition must be allowed. The offence was registered on a written complaint sent by her to the D.I.G. Police on 1.5.1996. This report does not allege that the alleged intercourse on 21.2.1996 was without her consent or against her will. Keeping in mind the fact that she is an adult educated woman, and is well conversant with law being an Additional Public Prosecutor. She was expected to be prompt in lodging the complaint, mentioning all the details about want of consent or use of force to constitute rape. Keeping in mind the fact that she is an adult educated woman, and is well conversant with law being an Additional Public Prosecutor. She was expected to be prompt in lodging the complaint, mentioning all the details about want of consent or use of force to constitute rape. On her own showing, she had married the accused and the allegations of rape on the basis of this report have no leg to stand. Without entering into the controversy about the legality or validity of marriage, we would like to say that the allegations made in the report sent by her on 1.5.96 do not constitute an offence under section 376, 493 or 496 IPC, in the circumstances of this case. The revision petition, is, therefore, allowed. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed on 28.7.1997 is hereby set aside and the charges framed by him are hereby quashed.