ORDER : Though the matter is listed for admission, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. This is the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C challenging the illegality and correctness of the order passed by the court below on the application filed by him under Section 227 of Cr.P.C seeking to discharge him from the proceedings. 3. The court below after considering the application filed seeking to discharge the petitioner from the proceedings, partly allowed the application and held that so far as the alleged offence under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC is concerned, there is a prima facie case as against the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-state. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that false allegations are made in the complaint that the petitioner made a false promise to the complainant that he will marry her and had sexual intercourse with her. The learned counsel submitted that he never made such false promise and never had sexual intercourse with the complainant. It is also the submission made by the learned counsel that even if there is sexual intercourse between the petitioner and the complainant, but the material goes to show that it was consensual in nature. The learned counsel further made the submission referring to the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C before JMFC Court, which clearly goes to show that petitioner-accused not at all committed any of the alleged offence and there is a false implication. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that this aspect is not taken into consideration by the court below while appreciating the application filed for discharge from the proceedings. The counsel further submitted that there is no prima facie material to attract the alleged offences under Section 376 and 417 of IPC. The proceedings in the matter is a futile exercise and no purpose will be served. Hence, the learned counsel submitted to allow the petition and also to allow the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. by setting aside the order of the trial Court and discharge the revision petitioner-accused from the proceedings. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP made the submission that prosecutrix herself is the complainant in the case. Hence, the learned counsel submitted to allow the petition and also to allow the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. by setting aside the order of the trial Court and discharge the revision petitioner-accused from the proceedings. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP made the submission that prosecutrix herself is the complainant in the case. He refers the contents of the complaint and made the submission that there are clear allegations in the complaint that the petitioner herein by making a false promise that he will marry her, had sexual intercourse with her. Hence, the learned HCGP made submission that the allegation made by the complainant-prosecutrix is a matter of trial. Referring the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, the learned HCGP made the submission that there may be some deviation in the said statement. He submitted that when there is a material from the complaint averments itself that there is a forcible sexual intercourse on her on the false promise that he is going to marry her, it is a matter of trial and it is not the case for discharge to consider. Hence, learned HCGP submitted that there is no merit in the revision petition, the same is to be rejected. 7. I have perused the grounds urged in the revision petition, complaint averments and also the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, copy of which is produced and also the other documents produced by the learned counsel i.e., application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and objection statement filed, etc. 8. I have also perused the order of the Court below on the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge of the petitioner from the proceedings. Looking to the materials placed on record and the complaint filed by the prosecutrix, there is an allegation that by making promise to marry her, the petitioner herein committed sexual intercourse with her. 9. I have perused the statement of the prosecutrix, copy of which is produced and in this statement so far as sexual intercourse is concerned there is no specific averment, but at the end of the statement it is submitted by the prosecutrix herein that the petitioner has not assaulted or abused her by filthy words. He has not at all told her that he is going to commit her murder. He has not at all told her that he is going to commit her murder. Therefore, the statement even if looked into there is no specific statement of the prosecutrix before the JMFC Court that he has not at all committed sexual intercourse with her. Looking into these materials and also the allegations made in the complaint that there is sexual intercourse by making false promise, at this stage, produced the prima facie material that even if there is a consent by the victim to have sexual intercourse, it cannot be said to be on free volition and free consent of the victim and it is under the promise made by the petitioner to the victim that he is going to marry her. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial judge on the application. It is a matter of trial. Hence, the petition is hereby rejected.