JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhandari, J. - The petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition aggrieved by order dated 26.11.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities Cases) No. 1, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 388/2018, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner under Section 376 of India Penal Code. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that a missing person report was lodged by sister of the prosecutrix on 06.09.2017 at 19:44 PM, reporting missing of her sister since 05.09.2017. Prosecutrix returned back on 08.09.2017, her statement was recorded by the police wherein she mentioned that she went on her own to Ajmer, she called up her sisters fiance Shubham and then Shubham had brought her from Ajmer. Prosecutrix herself and her mother on the same day gave a letter to the SHO that they do not want to proceed with the missing person report. The missing person report was then closed on 09.11.2017. On the same day prosecutrix filed the present FIR bearing No. 558/2017 at 9:40 PM. On 18.09.2017, prosecutrix submitted an affidavit to the Police, which was signed by the prosecutrix and her mother to the effect that she does not want to proceed with her FIR No. 558/2017. On the next date i.e. 19.09.2017, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she alleged that petitioner was having relationship with her on the pretext that he would marry her and threatened the prosecutrix that if she does not agree to the relationship he would get her removed from service. FIR was also lodged by father of the petitioner on 28.09.2017 bearing FIR No. 604/2017 alleging that the prosecutrix her sisters fiance Shubham and mother of prosecutrix are blackmailing his son and demanding Rs. 60 lacs. In the FIR lodged by father of the petitioner. Police arrested Shubham and has already submitted charge-sheet. Offence was found to be made out against the prosecutrix as well. However, the matter was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. against the prosecutrix as prosecutrix was not traceable. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the fact of filing of affidavit was in the notice of the Investigating Officer, who has submitted the charge-sheet. Offence was found to be made out against the prosecutrix as well. However, the matter was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. against the prosecutrix as prosecutrix was not traceable. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the fact of filing of affidavit was in the notice of the Investigating Officer, who has submitted the charge-sheet. It is contended that from the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is revealed that prosecutrix was in relationship with the petitioner, in the affidavit submitted by her before the police, she had specifically deposed that petitioner had never given her any assurance that he would marry her. It is contended that since the affidavit is part of the record and is admittedly given by the prosecutrix after lodging of the present FIR. The same ought to have been considered by the Court before framing charge. 4. Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on 2013 (3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1097 Satvinder Pal Kaur @ Sonia v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. , Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 1443 of 2018 decided by the Apex Court on 22.11.2018, Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SC Cases 46 , Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675 and (2017) 1 RCR (Criminal) 715 Akshay Manoj Jaisinghani v. State of Maharashtra . 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that as per the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse on the misconception that petitioner would marry her. 6. I have considered the contentions, the Apex Court in Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra) referred to Vineet Kumar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2017) 13 SCC 369 , wherein the Apex Court observed as under:- "Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of oppression or harassment. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of oppression or harassment. When there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding. The present is a fit case where the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the Criminal proceedings". 7. The facts before the Apex Court in Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (supra) were that the accused was serving as a Medical Officer in the Primary Health Centre and the complainant was working as an Assistant Nurse in the same Health Centre, the complainant was a widow, who agreed that she had fallen in love with the accused and that she needed a companion. The appellant-accused informed her that he was a married man and had differences between his wife. Complainant also admitted that she was having love affair with the accused and accordingly used to reside sometimes at her home and some time at his home. They were in a relationship with each other for quite some time and enjoyed each others company. When the complainant came to know that the appellant had married some other woman, she lodged the complaint. The Court observed that it is not a case of a passive submission in the face of any psychological pressure exerted and there was a tacit consent and the tacit consent given by her was not the result of a misconception created in her mind. The Apex Court observed that even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no case in made out against the accused. The Apex Court held that the complainant has failed to prima facie show the commission of rape and quashed the charge-sheet. 8. The Apex Court observed that even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no case in made out against the accused. The Apex Court held that the complainant has failed to prima facie show the commission of rape and quashed the charge-sheet. 8. In Uday v. State of Karnataka (supra), the Apex Court was considering the case where the prosecutrix, aged about 19 years, had given consent to sexual intercourse with the accused whom she was deeply in love with, on a promise that he would marry her on a later date. The prosecutrix continued to meet the accused and often had sexual intercourse and became pregnant. A complaint was lodged on failure of the accused to marry her. The Apex Court observed as under:- "21. It therefore appears that the consensus of judicial opinion is in favour of the view that the consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact. A false promise is not a fact within the meaning of the Code. We are inclined to agree with this view, but we must add that there is no strait jacket formula for determining whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntary, or whether it is given under a misconception of fact. In the ultimate analysis, the tests laid down by the Courts provide at best guidance to the judicial mind while considering a question of consent, but the Court must, in each case, consider the evidence before it and the surrounding circumstances, before reaching a conclusion, because each case has its own peculiar facts which may have a bearing on the question whether the consent was voluntary, or was given under a misconception of fact. It must also weigh the evidence keeping in view the fact that the burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every ingredient of the offence, absence of consent being one of them. 23. Keeping in view the approach that the Court must adopt in such cases, we shall now proceed to consider the evidence on record. In the instant case, the prosecutrix was a grown up girl studying in a college. 23. Keeping in view the approach that the Court must adopt in such cases, we shall now proceed to consider the evidence on record. In the instant case, the prosecutrix was a grown up girl studying in a college. She was deeply in love with the appellant. She was however aware of the fact that since they belonged to different castes, marriage was not possible. In any event the proposal for their marriage was bound to be seriously opposed by their family members. She admits having told so to the appellant when he proposed to her the first time. She had sufficient intelligence to understand the significance and moral quality of the act she was consenting to. That is why she kept it a secret as long as she could. Despite this, she did not resist the overtures of the appellant, and in fact succumbed to it. She thus freely exercised a choice between resistance and assent. She must have known the consequences of the act, particularly when she was conscious of the fact that their marriage may not take place at all on account of caste considerations. All these circumstances lead us to the conclusion that she freely, voluntarily, and consciously consented to having sexual intercourse with the appellant, and her consent was not in consequence of any misconception of fact." 9. In Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (supra), the Apex Court pointed out the distinction between rape and consensual sex. The Court observed that where there is a promise of marriage, the Court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives, and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust. Failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does not always amount to misconception of fact. In order to come within the meaning of the terms misconception of fact, the fact must have an immediate relevance. Section 90, IPC cannot be called into aid in such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in entirety, and fasten criminal liability on the other, unless the Court is assured of the fact that from the very beginning, the accused had never really intended to marry her. 10. Section 90, IPC cannot be called into aid in such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in entirety, and fasten criminal liability on the other, unless the Court is assured of the fact that from the very beginning, the accused had never really intended to marry her. 10. In Shiv Sankar @ Shiva v. State of Karnataka reported in 2018 SCC SC 3106 , the Apex Court held that where relationship has continued for eight years and complainants own version was that they lived together as man and wife, the charges levelled against the appellant, who may have possibly made a false promise of marriage to the complainant cannot be sustained. 11. It is revealed from the fact of this case that when petitioner got engaged to a different girl, prosecutrix lodged the present FIR. Prosecutrix admittedly was in relationship with the petitioner for two years, she in her affidavit specifically mentioned that she was in relationship and the relationship was not on account of promise made by the petitioner that he would marry her. Charge-sheet has also been filed against the complainant party for blackmailing in the FIR lodged by the father of the petitioner, wherein there is an allegation that demand of Rs. 60 lacs was made. It is mentioned in the FIR that petitioners father was agreeable to marry his son with the prosecutrix but they refused and they were only interested in receiving money, which transcript was recorded by father of the petitioner and which is part of the charge-sheet submitted against Shubham. 12. Taking note of the above as also the fact that the prosecutrix had herself submitted an affidavit, which is part of the record that the sexual relations were not on account of false promise of marriage. This Court is of the opinion that ex-facie, the case set up by the complainant that the accused induced her under a false promise of marriage and thereafter fraudulently established physical relations with her is without any basis. The Trial Court has thus, committed an error in charging the petitioner for the offence under Section 376 IPC. 13. The Apex Court in Prashant Bharati v. State of NCT of Delhi in SLP (Cri.) No. 1800/2009 decided on 23.01.2013, discharged the accused in a case with almost in similar facts. The Trial Court has thus, committed an error in charging the petitioner for the offence under Section 376 IPC. 13. The Apex Court in Prashant Bharati v. State of NCT of Delhi in SLP (Cri.) No. 1800/2009 decided on 23.01.2013, discharged the accused in a case with almost in similar facts. Similarly, this Court in Satvinder Pal Kaur @ Sonia (supra) discharged the accused, exercising the suo moto powers of revision and the direction issued by the Trial Court for framing charges under Section 417 IPC was quashed. 14. This Court is of firm view that even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety. No case is made out against the accused, as prosecutrix was in consensual relationship with the petitioner and had herself given an affidavit that consensual relations were not on account of false promise of marriage. No case is thus, made out under Section 376 of IPC, the impugned order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the Court below therefore, deserves to be quashed and the Criminal Revision Petition deserves to be allowed. 15. The Criminal Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 26.11.2018 is quashed. Petitioner is discharged. The stay application stands disposed.