JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. N. Jotendro, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. Y. Ashang, learned state counsel appearing for the state respondents. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 07.04.2015 passed in connection with FIR No.16(2)2014 IBG. P.S registered U/s 420/493/506 IPC whereby the accused was discharged from the accusation. 3. Before adverting to the submissions made on behalf of the case of the petitioner-informant as made out in the FIR and also in her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. needs to be taken notice of. 4. The informant lodged a case stating therein that since she as well as the accused were in the same stream of game, she was knowing the accused since 2003 with whom she had developed friendship. Later on it turned in to love affairs and continued for long. In the beginning of 2013, the accused gave a proposal to her for being eloped to which she did not agree. Rather, she suggested the accused for having a formal marriage. On 12.5.2013, she went along with the accused for dating. As there was too late in the night she stayed back in the home of the accused who took undue advantage to have had sexual intercourse against her wish as she had succumbed to his pressure. However, she went on having sex with him. On account of that since she felt humiliated, she remained silent. But the family members of the accused even performed ‘Waroipot Ceremoney’ and fixed the date 21.05.2014 for marriage. But before that she came to know that the accused has eloped another girl with whom she wanted to marry and therefore the accused threatened her on mobile phone not to divulge about the incident which took place on 12.5.2013. On such accusation, a case was registered U/s 420/493/506 of the IPC. 5. The matter was investigated upon. During investigation, the I.O. got the statement of the informant recorded U/s 164 Cr.PC by the Magistrate wherein she stated almost in the same manner that since both of them were sport persons they fell in love with each other. She was being called by the mother of the accused to the house of the accused where in absence of family members, the accused used to have sexual intercourse with her and went on having sex with her on different occasions. She was being called by the mother of the accused to the house of the accused where in absence of family members, the accused used to have sexual intercourse with her and went on having sex with her on different occasions. But she did not disclose to any one about the said facts though the mother of the accused has occasioned to see them in compromising position at one point of time. 6. On completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet upon which cognizance was taken of the offences punishable U/s 420/493/506 of the IPC. Subsequently an application U/s 227 of the Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the accused for discharging him from the case. The learned court below after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case did find that no case either U/s 420 IPC or even U/s 493 of the IPC is made out as the petitioner under the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to have cheated the informant nor the accused has been alleged to have had sex with the informant on giving impression that she is legally married wife of him and thereby the prayer for discharge was allowed vide order dated 7.4.2015 which is under challenge. 7. Mr. N. Jotendro Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the case should have been registered under Section 376/417 IPC but it has never been registered under those sections of the IPC and therefore an application has been filed for directing the I.O. to take up the matter for further investigation so that the I.O. after making further investigation submit charge sheet. At this stage, it was stated to the counsel that had the case been registered U/s 376/417 IPC the facts which were divulged by the informant either in the F.I.R. or in her statement made under section 164 Cr.PC would have been the same and therefore no useful purpose would be served to direct the I.O. to take the case for further investigation at this stage. Accordingly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was called upon to argue the case as if the charge sheet has been submitted for the offence punishable U/s 376/417 IPC. Accordingly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was called upon to argue the case as if the charge sheet has been submitted for the offence punishable U/s 376/417 IPC. In that event, learned counsel by referring to the allegations made in the F.I.R. and also under the statement made under Section 164 Cr.PC submitted that it is quite specific that the accused committed rape upon the prosecurtix without her consent and that the informant succumbed to the pressure as she was carrying impression that the accused would marry her and thereby the trial court should have considered the case from that angle but it ignored this aspect of the matter completely and thereby committed illegality in allowing the prayer of the accused for discharge. 8. Heard learned State counsel, Mr. Y. Ashang. 9. On perusal of the F.I.R. as well as the statement made U/s 164 Cr.PC, I do find that it has never been the case of the informant that the accused on giving false promise of marrying the informant went on having sex with her. Rather, from the statement made in the F.I.R. and also under section 164 Cr.PC it does appear that since both of them were the players of the same stream they fell in love with each other. Further case is that the informant on one day came to the house of the accused where she had had with the accused and not only that according to her statement made U/s 164 Cr.PC, she went on having sex with the accused subsequently. In such a situation, it is apparent that whatever act was there on the part of the accused that was with the consent of the informant and in that event no offence is made out either U/s 376 or 417 of the IPC. That apart, the court below has rightly did find that no offence is made out U/s 420/493/506 IPC. Thus, I do not find any merit in this application, hence it is dismissed.