JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard. 2. Petitioner prays to quash the order of cognizance in G.R. Case No. 65 of 1999 u/s 376, I.P.C. pending in the Court of Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Angul. 3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. filed by the prosecutrix that on the first date of occurrence at about noon time Petitioner committed forcible sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix and thereafter assured her to marry and further cohabited with her for certain period as a result of which the prosecutrix became pregnant and thereafter the Petitioner avoided to marry so she filed the F.I.R. seeking justice from the Court. Referring to the said allegations learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that subsequent conduct of the prosecutrix in co-habiting with the Petitioner takes away rigority of the first alleged sexual intercourse which, as alleged was done without her consent. Accordingly he prays to quash the cognizance order. 4. In the long drawn argument, Petitioner referred to the decisions reported in 1998 (1) OLR 318 (Akhaya Kumar alias Babua Parida v. State of Orissa), Jayanti Rani Panda Vs. State of West Bengal and Another Hari Majhi Vs. The State, and argued that in view of her consented cohabitation at all stage except the first occurrence, there does not exist a prima facie case u/s 376, I.P.C. After going through the aforesaid decisions this Court does not find a ratio having been propounded by the cited authorities that the offence of rape will be ignored because of subsequent cohabitation on consent. It may further be indicated that in the cited cases their Lordships were dealing with cases of consented cohabitation whereas in the present case as alleged by the prosecutrix the act of co-habitation on the first date was caused without her consent and also by application of force. Therefore, the allegation of rape cannot be dismissed at the threshold. It is, however, left to the judicial conscience of the trial Court to assess the evidence and to record the finding as to how far the allegation of rape is to be believed.. From the materials in case diary this Court finds existence of a prima facie case to take cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 376, I.P.C. 5. It is, however, left to the judicial conscience of the trial Court to assess the evidence and to record the finding as to how far the allegation of rape is to be believed.. From the materials in case diary this Court finds existence of a prima facie case to take cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 376, I.P.C. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further argues that there was inordinate delay of nine months from the date of occurrence till the submission of F.I.R. and relying on the case of Patra Mirgan Vs. The State, ; he states that on that ground the cognizance order is liable to be quashed. In the cited case this Court while hearing an appeal against the conviction u/s 376 and 354, I.P.C. took note of the unexplained delay. That is not the case here. However, at the time of trial, if such a point shall be raised or will be found relevant and necessary for consideration, the trial Court shall decide that issue in accordance with the evidence adduced by the parties. 6. For the reasons indicated above, there being nothing to interfere with the impugned cognizance order, the Criminal Misc. Case is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed