JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Shri Nandeshwar, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that victim lodged the report alleging rape against the applicant. He has submitted that victim is aged about 21 years. She voluntarily went to the applicant and had sexual relations with her consent. Ingredients of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted. 4. Criminal Application (APL) No. 841/2017 was filed by the present applicant. Said application came to be dismissed on 27-2-2018. While dismissing the said application, it was observed that “all questions are kept open to be agitated in the application for discharge. Merely because this Court has refused to entertain this application cannot be a ground for rejection of application for discharge which shall decided on its own merits.” Thereafter application for discharge, Exhibit 4 was moved before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 43/2018. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur after hearing both the parties rejected the said application for discharge, therefore, the present revision. 5. Shri Nandeshwar, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that material filed on record shows that victim was consenting party for sexual intercourse. She is major and, therefore, offence punishable under Section 376 is not made out. Learned counsel has pointed out decision of this Court in Criminal Application (APL) No. 111/2017 in which myself (M.G. Giratkar, J.) was the party. Learned counsel has submitted that the same fact is involved in the present case. He has also pointed out decision of this Court in Criminal Application (APL) No. 446/2015. Both the criminal applications pointed out were for quashing of FIR. The present applicant also filed Criminal Application (APL) No. 841/2017 which came to be dismissed. It was observed that trial Court shall not influence by the order of this Court while deciding the application for quashing of FIR. Learned trial Court considered the contents of FIR and other documents. 6. While framing charge, Court has to see the documents available on record i.e. complete chargesheet. Learned counsel has pointed out copy of register of lodge and submitted that victim went to the lodge. She had sexual intercourse with the applicant with her consent. From the perusal of report, it appears that applicant promised to marry the victim. Her menstrual cycle was stopped. Accused started avoiding her. Learned counsel has pointed out copy of register of lodge and submitted that victim went to the lodge. She had sexual intercourse with the applicant with her consent. From the perusal of report, it appears that applicant promised to marry the victim. Her menstrual cycle was stopped. Accused started avoiding her. She asked the applicant to perform marriage but he ignored the same and therefore, by way of last resort, she lodged the report. 7. Whether the consent given by the victim was free consent or not is to be decided after recording the evidence. Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code defined consent. Consent obtained under the promise of marriage is not a free consent. It is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Naushad in Criminal Appeal No. 1949/2013 on 19-11-2013. Hence, present revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, revision is dismissed. However, trial Court is directed to decide the trial within a period of six months.