JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in Sessions Case No.56/2016, pending on the file of the learned Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu.) 1. Accused is the Petitioner herein, seeking quashment of proceedings in Sessions Case No.56/2016, pending on the file of the learned Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 2(a). The facts leading to filing of this case are as follows: Both the Petitioner/Accused and the Defacto Complainant completed their B.E., Degree in Matha Engineering College, Kundrathur, Chennai, during the academic year 2006-2010. During December 2010, the Petitioner/Accused secured employment in CTS, Chennai and got placement at Bangalore. During October 2013, the Defacto Complainant and her parents have visited the home of the Petitioner, regarding marriage and the same was not materialised and subjected to threat. 2(b) The first complaint was before the Chrompet Police station on 16.10.2013, alleging that the Complainant and Accused are classmates i.e., during college period 2006-2010 and they loved each other. They were friends for 4 years and then became lovers. They met weekly two times and when the Complainant asked Accused to talk to his parents for marriage few days before, Accused had said “No” as his family was not agreeable. Based on the said complaint, the Petitioner and his Father taken to Chrompet Police Station on 16.10.2013 and on 17.10.2013, affidavits of the Petitioner and his Father stating that the Petitioner will marry the Defacto Complainant, were forcibly obtained from them. 2(c). During October 2013, the Petitioner/Accused left for Dubai, there was legal notice from the Complainant, during May 2014 and the same was replied by the Petitioner. The sum and substance of the exchange of notice between the parties are to the effect that the Complainant and the Petitioner were good friends. During 2007, the Petitioner proposed the Complainant and she accepted. The Petitioner compelled the Complainant and took her to his house and had physical relationship, many times using contraceptives. During 2013, the Complainant called the Accused's parents and informed about their love affair, Accused stopped contacting/talking with the Complainant. As per Complainant, on 14.10.2013, Complainant and her parents visited Accused's house and talked to his parents about marriage, but as per the reply of the Accused, the Complainant and her parents visited them only on 16.10.2013, immediately prior to lodging of the first complaint. As per Complainant, on 14.10.2013, Complainant and her parents visited Accused's house and talked to his parents about marriage, but as per the reply of the Accused, the Complainant and her parents visited them only on 16.10.2013, immediately prior to lodging of the first complaint. In the reply notice, the Accused denied each and every allegations and mentioned the email threat from Defacto Complainant to Petitioner's sister. 2(d). The Second complaint was during August 2014 and the substance of the complaint are to the effect that the Complainant and the Petitioner were best friends in College, after 8 months, Petitioner had told Complainant that he loves her, Complainant initially was reluctant, when the Accused compelled her, she agreed to love him. For 6 years, the Complainant and the Petitioner were lovers. In the year 2010, the Complainant got the job in Bangalore and the Petitioner got the job in Siruseri. During June 2011, Petitioner came to Bangalore and visited her in hostel and when she was alone, saying that he will marry her, insisted her for physical relationship. Since the Complainant refused, Accused went back to Chennai. Thereafter, Accused did not contact the complainant. During December 2011, when the Complainant visited Petitioner's house, he forced her to have physical relationship, further Petitioner compelled her to have the same on every Saturday & Sunday and took obscene video and photos and threatened her. Whenever she avoided to visit Chennai, Petitioner visited her in Bangalore, threatened her to upload the photos in internet and forcibly compelled to have physical relationship for more than 150 times. 2(e). Based upon the above said complaint, the present FIR in Cr.No.58 of 2014, for the alleged offences under Sections 376, 506(1) was registered by the first Respondent Police on 16.08.2014. During March 2015, the Petitioner/Accused was arrested, based on the lookout circular from Cochin Airport, on his return from Dubai and was kept in jail for 22 days. 2(f). The medical examination of the Petitioner/Accused was conducted on 11.03.2015 and the medical examination of the Defacto Complainant was conducted on 18.03.2016, which are discussed infra. Additional and subsequent statement was recorded on 12.06.2015. On the basis of such allegations, initially a case has been registered in Cr.No.54 of 2013 on 16.08.2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 376 and 501 (1) IPC. Additional and subsequent statement was recorded on 12.06.2015. On the basis of such allegations, initially a case has been registered in Cr.No.54 of 2013 on 16.08.2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 376 and 501 (1) IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet has been filed for offences under Sections 376, 406 & 506 (ii) IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. The case was committed to Sessions in PRC No.23/2016 and is now pending trial before the Mahila Court, Chengalpattu vide S.C.No.56 of 2016. 3. The present case is filed for quashing the charge sheet for the offences under Section 376, 406 & 506 (1) IPC. 4. Mr.I.Subramanian, learned Senior counsel, for Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.C.E.Pratap, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the first Respondent and Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain, learned counsel for the second Respondent heard. 5. Final report along with statement recorded under Section 161 of the witnesses were also filed by way of typed set of papers, including certain photographs, Section 164 statement, e-mail chats between the Defacto Complainant and the Petitioner/Accused are also filed and perused. 6. The sum and substance of the Complaint in the above said FIR is that the second Respondent lodged a further Complaint with All Women Police Station, Tambaram against the Petitioner herein on 16.08.2014, alleging that she had sexual intercourse with the Petitioner herein, under threat, for over 150 times. It is her specific allegation in the Complaint that she had such sexual intercourse from December 2011, until the relationship soured. It is her further allegation in the said FIR that obscene photographs were taken by the Petitioner with a threat of uploading it, in the social media and by making such a threat the Petitioner had forcible have physical relationship with her. It is further alleged that the second Respondent consented to such intercourse with the Petitioner, due to the assurance given by him that he would marry her. 7. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner would contend that despite the claim of the second Respondent that she had physical/sexual relationship with the Petitioner herein on over 150 occasions, the medical opinion is that she is a virgin and her hymen in intact. This aspect alone throws overboard the case of the prosecutrix. 7. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner would contend that despite the claim of the second Respondent that she had physical/sexual relationship with the Petitioner herein on over 150 occasions, the medical opinion is that she is a virgin and her hymen in intact. This aspect alone throws overboard the case of the prosecutrix. The learned counsel also draw my attention to the specific allegation in the present complaint that she had physical relationship with the Petitioner, when the Doctor who examined her has categorically gave statement to police as under: “...L/T Hymen intact, not able to insert even 1 finger into vagina, No Hymen tear, no congestes, “TAMIL”, not suggestive of intercourse in the past” The entire allegations in the complaint on the basis of which the case has come into being is thoroughly false. Dr.Meganathan, who examined the Petitioner herein for potency has also clearly stated as follows: “No ulcer or scar or injuries seen anywhere on and around the external genitalia and anywhere on the body” and the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner would further contend that the case of the Second Respondent/victim is highly incomprehensible and false in the context of the medical evidence in the case. The second Respondent/Prosecutrix has given totally inconsistent versions in her earlier complaint dated 16.10.2013 and the present one dated 16.08.2014 before the All Women Police Station, Tambaram, based on which the present case has come into being and hence seeks for quashment. 8. Learned counsel for the second Respondent would contend that now the second Respondent/Defacto Complainant has got married, she does not wish to have disturbance of her past event in her present marital life and peace in future. 9. Learned Government Advocate would contend that the points raised by the learned Senior counsel as to the material contradiction between the evidence of the Defacto Complainant and the statement of Defacto Complainant (LW1), suffers from improvement are all matters for trial and in the quashment proceedings, same cannot be gone into. 10. This Court has given its anxious consideration for the submissions made by both the parties. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner would rely upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Crl.MC.No.2960 of 2021 in Crl.M.A.No.18641 of 2021, dated 07th March 2022, wherein the charge sheet for the alleged offences Sections 376 (2)n, 354, 354-A IPC was quashed. 11. This Court has given its anxious consideration for the submissions made by both the parties. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner would rely upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Crl.MC.No.2960 of 2021 in Crl.M.A.No.18641 of 2021, dated 07th March 2022, wherein the charge sheet for the alleged offences Sections 376 (2)n, 354, 354-A IPC was quashed. 11. He would further rely upon the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in case of Manoj Bajpai Vs. State of Delhi, dated 21.05.2015, which is in connection with 'live-in-relationship' qua whether the offence under Section 376 is made out or not, has been dealt with. He relied upon another judgment in Crl.A.2322 of 2010 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana, which is on the point of Section 365 & 376 of IPC and the case is on Appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after trial by the learned Sessions Judge. He has also relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his case: 1. Aman Kumar and Another Vs. State of Haryana in Appeal (Crl.) No.1016 of 1997, dated 10.02.2004; 2. Koppula Venkat Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in Appeal (Crl.).84 of 1998 dated 10.03.2004 & 3. Uday Vs. State of Karnataka in Appeal (Crl.).336 of 1996. 12. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner would contend that, there is a variation in the statement of the Defacto Complainant between first complaint and the second complaint on 16.10.2013 and 16.08.2014 and also relied upon the medical opinion that, her hymen is intact and therefore, the learned counsel would contend that the essential ingredients of Section 375 is not made out. 13(a). In the preceding paragraphs, the medical opinion given by the lady Doctor on examination of LW1/Defacto Complainant/R2 is extracted, so also medical examination of the Accused is extracted as supra. 13(b). According to the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, there is improvement on the evidence of LW1, with regard to initial statement recorded under Section 161 on 16.08.2014 and further statement recorded on 12.06.2015, which would show that, there is lot of improvement in the further statement of the Defacto Complainant, after medical examination on 18.03.2015, with regard to medical opinion and hence seeks quashment. 14. In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Vs. 14. In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued guideline for quashment of proceedings, by observing that, in the quashment proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., High Courts shall not endeavour into conducting of mini trial viz., appreciation of evidence. 15. In the instant case, all the points raised by the learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner/Accused falls under the category of appreciation of evidence that has to be put to the respective witnesses, during the time of trial, so as to make it as a material contradiction as contended above. Whether the version of LW1/victim girl suffers from material contradiction with that of the medical evidence of Doctor and whether the statement of the victim/LW1 suffers from improvement, amounting to embellishment in the nature of material contradiction, as to the physical act committed by the Accused on her body and whether the version of LW1, satisfying the ingredients under Section 375 IPC, which is punishable under Section 376, are all matters for trial. 16. The charge sheet in the instant case has also been filed. The plea taken by the Petitioner are in the nature of defence or to say the least, viz., the disputed question of fact, cannot be gone into at the quashment stage. Prosecutrix has made clear allegation against the Accused in her statement, recorded under section 161 and reiterated the same in her further statement. Truth and falsity of the allegation cannot be gone into at this stage. It is a specific case of Prosecutrix that, she allowed to physical relationship, on the promise of marriage. In the furtherance thereof, after taking some obscene photographs, she was threatened and further he had sexual intercourse. 17. After perusing the email chat between the Petitioner/Accused and the victim/Defacto Complainant as enclosed in the typed set, which is part of the final report, filed in the above case, it is amply establishes the intimate relationship that existed between the two, also assumes significance and also lend support to the case of the Defacto Complainant. 18. The High Court of Delhi in case of Manoj Bajpai Vs. 18. The High Court of Delhi in case of Manoj Bajpai Vs. State of Delhi, dated 21.05.2015, has held as follows: “xv) It is well settled law that any subsequent statement to fill up the lacuna in the complaint made earlier cannot be a ground for proceedings with the case. It is the first version as disclosed in the complaint which is always important for adjudicating as to whether an Accused has committed any offence or not. ... 32. In State of Orissa (supra) and Sativinder Kaur (supra), Ujjal Kumar (supra) and Mahavir Prashad Gupta (supra), the legal proposition was reiterated that the inherent powers vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should exercised sparingly with circumspection and as far as possible to be exercised where the allegation in the complaint or in the First Information Report, taken on its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged.” 19. Taking into consideration the inherent powers vested with the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Civil Procedure, which should be exercised sparingly with the circumspection and also the points raised by the Petitioner, which are the matter for trial, I am not inclined to exercise power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 20. In fine, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.