Judgment 1. The defacto complaint was served with notice. She is also present in this Court. On being questioned, she submits that she is not interested in becoming a party-respondent in the revision and contesting the revision. The same is recorded. 2. The arguments advanced by Mr. G. Thiruvarutselvan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and by Mrs. S. Prabha, learned Government Advocate(Crl. side) representing the respondent/Police are heard. The materials available on record submitted by the Court below and also the materials available in the C.D file produced by the respondent for the perusal of the Court are perused. 3. Based on the complaint of the de-facto complainant dated 05.02.2012, a case was registered against the Petitioner in All Women Police Station, Thiruvadanai as Crime No.10 of 2012 in the said Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 417 and 506(i) IPC and also the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. The allegations made in the complaint are that the de-facto complaint and the Petitioner loved each other and the Petitioner developed intimacy with her promising to marry her; that subsequently he went back from the promise and refused to marry her and that when the relatives of the de-facto complainant questioned the Petitioner, he caused a threat to them that he would kill the defacto complainant. Based on the said allegation alone, the First Information Report was drawn and the case was registered. In fact, the original complaint dated 3.1.2012 and it was subsequently corrected to 5.5.2012 and the case came to be registered on 5.5.2012. After completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruvadanai submitted the final report on the file of learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai accusing the revision Petitioner of committing the above said offences. On his production/appearance, the revision Petitioner filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.860 of 2013 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., praying for an order of discharge. The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Thiruvadanai, after hearing, dismissed the said discharge petition, namely Cr.M.P.No.860 of 2013 in C.C.No.21 of 2013 holding that there were prima facie materials for presuming that the Petitioner had committed the offences alleged in the final report. The said impugned of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai came to be passed on 9.5.2014. The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Thiruvadanai, after hearing, dismissed the said discharge petition, namely Cr.M.P.No.860 of 2013 in C.C.No.21 of 2013 holding that there were prima facie materials for presuming that the Petitioner had committed the offences alleged in the final report. The said impugned of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai came to be passed on 9.5.2014. The legality and correctness of the said order are questioned in the present Criminal Revision Case preferred by the Petitioner under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code. 4. A perusal of the records shows that the complaint simply reveals the love affair between the Petitioner and the defacto complainant Both of them were college going students studying in different colleges. The defacto complaint was pursuing degree course in Idhaya College, Sarugani, whereas the revision Petitioner was pursuing his degree course in Ananda College, Devakkottai. Due to infactuation or meeting point of the minds of the matured persons, they developed intimacy and love affair with each other. The contents of the complaint and the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation reveal that they did not cross the Laxman Rekha. There is no allegation that the defacto complainant parted with any property on the promise of the Petitioner. There is also no averment that she committed any act which would have detrimentally affected beleiving the promise made by the Petitioner. A reading of the contents of the First Information Report and the statements recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C makes it clear that necessary averments to attract Section 406 IPC are not there. Necessary ingredients to constitute cheating as defined under Section 415 I.P.C have not been alleged to exist. 5. The Station House Officer chose to register the case for an offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act also. This Court is not in a position to find any averment attracting the said section. The averments are to the effect that both of them get attracted towards each other and they developed the so-called love affair which was sought to be broken by the Petitioner. Developing a love affair, which is mutual, will not answer the definition of harassment which is made punishable under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. The averments are to the effect that both of them get attracted towards each other and they developed the so-called love affair which was sought to be broken by the Petitioner. Developing a love affair, which is mutual, will not answer the definition of harassment which is made punishable under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. Hence as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the said penal provision has been incorporated in the First Information Report as well as the Final Report only with a view to make the case one for a graver offence knowing the weakness of the prosecution cases regarding the other two offences namely Sections 406 and 417 of IPC also. 6. If at all there is any material attracting any of the penal provisions found in the final report, they are only the allegationsn regarding the commission of offence under Section 506(i)IPC. Even regarding those allegations, there are inbuilt contradictions between the complaint and the 161 statement of the defacto complainant. In the complaint, she has stated that when the relatives of the defacto complainant approached the Petitioner and asked him to marry the defacto complainant, he caused a threat to them that he would kill the defacto complainant. However, in the statement recorded on the very same day under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the defacto complainant has stated that the said threat was made to her when she questioned the Petitioner's act of distrancing himself from the defacto complainant and refusing to marry her disregarding the promise made by him. The said contradiction itself is capable of destroying and totally demolishing the prosecution case regarding the alleged offence punishable under Section 506(i) IPC. 7. A perusal of the statements recorded during investigation shows that the relatives and neighbours of the defacto complainant were against the love affair between the Petitioner and the defacto complainant and two of her relatives had gone to the extent of reprimanding the Petitioner for having such an affair with the defacto complainant. It transpires, of-late the relatives of the defacto complainant who were against the love affair changed their decision and thereafter approached the Petitioner and his mother with a demand that the Petitioner should marry the defacto complainant. It transpires, of-late the relatives of the defacto complainant who were against the love affair changed their decision and thereafter approached the Petitioner and his mother with a demand that the Petitioner should marry the defacto complainant. At that point of time, the defacto complainant and her mother seem to have refused to accept their demand and the same provided a cause and motive for the lodging of the complaint. The overall consideration of the records will show that none of the offences alleged in the First Information Report and the final report has been made out. The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate closing her eyes to the above said aspects and in the absence of sufficient materials to make out a prima facie case, has chosen to take an arbitrary decision dismissing the discharge petition simply holding that there were materials to make out a prima facie case for the offences alleged in the final report. Perhaps, the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai showed leniency towards the victim as both belong to the same gender. 8. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai cannot be sustained either in law or on facts. The revision is destined to succeed and accordingly the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai in Cr.M.P.No.860 of 2013 in C.C.No.21 of 2013, dated 09.05.2014 is set aside. The Cr.M.P.No.860 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai shall stand dismissed and the Petitioner shall stand discharged of the offences. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.