JUDGMENT : SUBHASH CHAND, J. 1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 01.04.2023 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Giridih in M.C.A. Case No.498 of 2023 corresponding to S.T. Case No.252 of 2022 arising out of Giridih Mahila P.S. Case No.15 of 2020, whereby the learned Court below has rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The brief facts leading to this Criminal Revision are that the informant-victim gave written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that Amit Kumar Barnwal, the petitioner herein came in contact with her on 12.09.2015 in Anandam Tutorials, Burganda, Giridih, where the informant and Amit Kumar Barnwal both used to study in Anandam Tutorial and both became friend and this friendship developed into love affairs. On 14.02.2016, the petitioner-accused created pressure upon her to marry but she refused for the same. Even thereafter, he used to stalk her and also used to sit in front of her house for hours. She asked him not to sit in front of her house, but he criminally intimidated her saying that if she refused to marry with him, he would commit suicide in front of her house. She became frightened and ultimately she has agreed with Amit. He took her by the bike to Khandoli and also to waterfalls and at the isolated place he used to sexually exploit her. He used to say her that she was his wife and he is her husband. She began to trust on Amit Kumar Barnwal and utter belief that he would marry with her. On 09.12.2018, she had gone to take clerical exam of bank at Dhanbad and after coming from the examination hall, she found Amit Kumar Burnwal waiting for her. He made her seated on his bike and took her to Govindpur at a rented house, where he established physical relations with her. He also clicked nude photograph of her. On 06.01.2019, he also met her to Anandam Tutorial and took her by his bike to Bengabad area at Bergi Village, there also at the isolated place he made efforts to establish physical relation with her, on having seen by the villagers to them, he told to the villagers that she is his wife and also put vermilion on her head. On 08.06.2019, again in the examination of bank clerk at Dhanbad, he came by a car and took her with him by that car to the isolated place and established physical relations with her in the car itself. Despite opposing by her, he used to say that she is his wife and he had assumed himself to be her husband. Thereafter, she also became pregnant and her abortion was made after administering her some pills. On 23.06.2019 again in bank examination at Dhanbad, he came by a car and took her to Govindpur at a rented house, there also he established physical relation with her. This time, she insisted to Amit Kumar Barnwal to marry with her but he flatly refused for the same. He also threatened that he would make her nude photograph viral on internet and no other person will be agreed to marry with her. She told in this regard to her father, thereafter, her father went to the house of Amit Kumar Barnwal, where his father and brother both flatly refused to marry with her and the brother of Amit Kumar Barnwal also told to the informant to be characterless. Hereinafter this event, she made attempt to commit suicide, however, her brother came to rescue and again his father went to the house of Amit Kumar Barnwal, where his father and brother both made demand of Rs.12 lakhs and a Swift Dzire Car, but her father was not capable to fulfill that demand, consequently, they refused for marriage. Amit Kumar Barnwal continued to call her over her phone and he used to say that she would be his kept. The father and brother of Amit Kumar Barnwal criminally intimidated not to make complaint to police in this regard. The marriage of Amit Kumar Barnwal was scheduled to be fixed on 06.12.2020 in Sindri. If he got married with some another girl, she would be compelled to commit suicide. With these allegations along with Audio, Video, C.D. and Whatsapp messages copy, the written information was given to the Mahila Police Station, Giridih which was registered as Case Crime No.15 of 2020 under Sections 292, 294, 376, 417, 493, 354(c), 354(d), 504, 506 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 3. With these allegations along with Audio, Video, C.D. and Whatsapp messages copy, the written information was given to the Mahila Police Station, Giridih which was registered as Case Crime No.15 of 2020 under Sections 292, 294, 376, 417, 493, 354(c), 354(d), 504, 506 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 3. The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused Amit Kumar Barnwal for the offence under Section 376(2)(n), 292, 294, 354(c), 354(d), 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the D.P. Act; while the investigation against the father of the accused, namely, Arjun Prasad Barnwal and the brother of the accused, namely, Ashish Kumar Barnwal was continued. 4. The Court of learned Magistrate after having taken cognizance on the charge-sheet committed the case against Amit Kumar Barnwal for trial to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Giridih, who further transferred the same to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Giridih. Before the trial Court, an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner-accused for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned trial Court has rejected the discharge application of the petitioner holding that the prima facie there is material available on record to frame charge against the petitioner/accused under Section 376(2)(n), 354(C), 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Aggrieved from the impugned order dated 01.04.2023, the instant Criminal Revision has been directed on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below bears infirmity and the same is not based on the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, from which, no alleged offence is made out against the petitioner. From the allegations made in the FIR, the victim was 27 years old on the date of lodging of the FIR, even on the very date when she first met to the petitioner-accused, the victim was major. As per the allegations made, she was having love affairs with the petitioner-accused and the physical relations established consensually. No alleged force was used by the petitioner-accused. No alleged demand of dowry was made for marrying with her. As such, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below needs interference and prayed to allow this Criminal Revision. 6. As per the allegations made, she was having love affairs with the petitioner-accused and the physical relations established consensually. No alleged force was used by the petitioner-accused. No alleged demand of dowry was made for marrying with her. As such, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below needs interference and prayed to allow this Criminal Revision. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the materials available on record. 7. It is the settled law that while framing charge, the Court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the F.I.R. and also the evidence collected by the I.O. i.e., oral or documentary during the investigation. If from the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, there is sufficient ground to proceed, the Court should decline to allow the discharge application. If from the cumulative evidence i.e., oral and documentary collected during the investigation and the allegations made in the F.I.R., the Court is of the definite opinion that there is no ground to proceed against the trial; the application for the discharge may be allowed. It is also well settled law that while framing the charge the Court neither can appreciate the evidence nor can conduct the mini trial. The marshaling of the evidence or the appraisal of the evidence is not permissible at that stage. 8. In support of the allegations made in the FIR, which was lodged by the victim herself, the restatement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Investigating Officer in paragraph No.2 of the case diary, in which, she reiterated all those allegations which are made in the FIR itself by her. 9. In support of the allegations made in the FIR, which was lodged by the victim herself, the restatement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Investigating Officer in paragraph No.2 of the case diary, in which, she reiterated all those allegations which are made in the FIR itself by her. 9. In paragraph No.3 of the case diary, Mahadeo Lal Barnwal, the father of the victim; in paragraph No.4 of the case diary, Usha Devi, the mother of the victim; in paragraph No.5 of the case diary, Gautam Kumar, the brother of the victim and; in paragraph No.6 of the case diary, Uttam Kumar, the brother of the victim, the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of all four witnesses were recorded, in which, all these witnesses corroborated the prosecution story and also stated that Mahadeo Lal Barnwal, the father of the victim went to the house of Amit Kumar Barnwal for proposal of marriage of his daughter with Amit Kumar Barnwal; but the same was turned down saying that his daughter is characterless girl. Again the father of the victim went to the house of Amit Kumar Barnwal requesting to marry Amit Kumar Barnwal with his daughter, at this time, the father of Amit Kumar Barnwal, namely, Arjun Prasad Barnwal and brother of the accused, namely, Ashish Kumar Barnwal both were made demand of Rs.12 lakhs in cash and a Swift Dezire Car in dowry, on which, the father of the victim Mahadeo Lal Barnwal expressed his incapability, consequently, they flatly refused to marry Amit Kumar Barnwal with his daughter. 10. In paragraph No.31 of the case diary, the statement of victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, in which, the victim stated that on 12.09.2015 she came in contact of Amit Kumar Barnwal at Anandam Tutorial. After four months, their friendship developed into love affairs. In December, 2018, the accused-petitioner took her by his bike to his quarter at isolated place where he forcibly established physical relation with her. Thereafter, he used to stalk her and 3-4 times he took her to the village Bergi, where all times he established physical relation with her. After four months, their friendship developed into love affairs. In December, 2018, the accused-petitioner took her by his bike to his quarter at isolated place where he forcibly established physical relation with her. Thereafter, he used to stalk her and 3-4 times he took her to the village Bergi, where all times he established physical relation with her. At Bergi, the local people of the village had also seen them and he posed himself to be her husband and put vermilion on her head in presence of the villager. On 08.06.2018 he came by his bike and again took her to his quarter, where he established physical relation with her. Thereafter, on 23.06.2019, he again came by a Car at her examination center, Dhanbad, where she had gone to take exam, he took her from there and established physical relation with her in the car itself. Thereafter, she became pregnant and the accused petitioner also gave some pills for abortion. Then, she insisted him to marry with her but ultimately he refused to marry with her. Further, her father went to his house of Amit Kumar Barnwal, where his father and brother both made demand of Rs.12 lakhs and a car. Amit Kumar Barnwal had also clicked her nude photograph. He had been criminally intimidated her to make the same viral on the internet. On 06.12.2020, his marriage was scheduled to be fixed with another girl. 11. The victim was medically examined as paragraph No.45 of the case diary, wherein as per the radiological report, her age was determined 25 years old on 06.11.2020, though no definite opinion in regard to the rape was given. It was also opined that it was difficult to say whether the rape was committed or not; yet the hymen was shown old torn. 12. It was also opined that it was difficult to say whether the rape was committed or not; yet the hymen was shown old torn. 12. In paragraph No.65 of the case diary, Narayan Barnwal, uncle of the victim and in paragraph No.66 of the case diary, Deepak Sao, the neighbor of the victim, the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the Investigating Officer, in which, they stated that they came to know from the victim and her family members that she was having love affairs with Amit Kumar Barnwal, who had established physically relation with her on the pretext of marriage and, ultimately, refused to marry with her and a demand of Rs.12 lakhs and a Swift Dzire Car was also made by them for marriage with her. 13. In paragraph No.80 of the case diary, the statement of Director of Anandam Tutorial was also recorded, wherein he stated that both used to study in this Tutorial. 14. In paragraph No.109 of the case diary, the statement of landlord of the house, namely, Dr. Nawin Kumar was recorded of which Amit Kumar Barnwal was a tenant, in which, he expressed his ignorance in regard to the alleged occurrence. 15. In paragraph Nos.114 and 115 of the case diary, audio and video recordings are shown. In paragraph No.94 of the case diary, the statement of Ratu Basuki was recorded, who stated that on 06.01.2019, on the occasion of New Year, he had seen one boy and one girl involved in sexual relation and at that time the boy had posed himself to be the husband of the girl and had put vermilion on her head. 16. From the very allegations made in the FIR, which was lodged by the victim herself, it is found that the victim was 27 years old on the date of lodging of the FIR, which was lodged on 05.11.2020. The academic certificate issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi the photocopy of the same is on record, from which, it is found that the date of birth of victim is 03.02.1993, this certificate issued for the Secondary Examination. The academic certificate issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi the photocopy of the same is on record, from which, it is found that the date of birth of victim is 03.02.1993, this certificate issued for the Secondary Examination. In view of her date of birth as mentioned in the academic certificate, which is 03.02.1993, the age of victim in the year 2015 was 22 years, when she for the first time came in contact of the accused-petitioner Amit Kumar Barnwal. 17. From the allegations made in the FIR, it is also found that the victim had love affairs with the accused. Thereafter, physical relations were established between them at several place and several dates at that time the victim was a major girl. She was well aware in regard to the consequences of physical relations established before the marriage. Still without solemnization of marriage she continued to establish physical relations with the accused. From the allegations made in the FIR and also the statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is well established that the physical relations established between them were consensual. Though, the allurement was made by the accused to marry with her and the accused had also posed himself to be her husband. Since the year 2015 up to the year 2020 for more than 5 years, both continued to establish physical relation at several places on various dates whenever they found any suitable opportunity for them. In between, the victim became pregnant but after having administered some pills, the abortion was also done. Taking into consideration the age of the victim, who was quite major since the year 2015, being 22 years old and up to the year 2020 when she became 27 years old, she continued to establish physical relation with Amit Kumar Barnwal without solemnization of marriage. Her thorough gesture, conduct and act shows that she was consenting in establishing physical relation with the accused Amit Kumar Barnwal, the petitioner herein. The consent, as alleged, is not found to be obtained under misconception or fraud in view of Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code. Her thorough gesture, conduct and act shows that she was consenting in establishing physical relation with the accused Amit Kumar Barnwal, the petitioner herein. The consent, as alleged, is not found to be obtained under misconception or fraud in view of Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code. As per admission made by the victim, when she was caught red-handed along with petitioner-accused by the villagers in compromising position, at that time, in presence of the persons of the locality, the accused had posed himself to be her husband and has put vermilion on her head. At that time, the victim did not oppose of the act and conduct of the accused rather she was also very much consenting on account of her acquiescence. 18. Herein, it would be pertinent to give certain legal propositions of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which is reproduced herein below: 18.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 has held at paragraph No.21 as under: 21. The allegations in the FIR do not on their face indicate that the promise by the appellant was false, or that the complainant engaged in sexual relations on the basis of this promise. There is no allegation in the FIR that when the appellant promised to marry the complainant, it was done in bad faith or with the intention to deceive her. The appellant's failure in 2016 to fulfil his promise made in 2008 cannot be construed to mean the promise itself was false. The allegations in the FIR indicate that the complainant was aware that there existed obstacles to marrying the appellant since 2008, and that she and the appellant continued to engage in sexual relations long after their getting married had become a disputed matter. Even thereafter, the complainant travelled to visit and reside with the appellant at his postings and allowed him to spend his weekends at her residence. The allegations in the FIR belie the case that she was deceived by the appellant's promise of marriage. Therefore, even if the facts set out in the complainant's statements are accepted in totality, no offence under Section 375 IPC has occurred. 18.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mandar Deepak Pawar Vs. the State of Maharashtra & Anr. The allegations in the FIR belie the case that she was deceived by the appellant's promise of marriage. Therefore, even if the facts set out in the complainant's statements are accepted in totality, no offence under Section 375 IPC has occurred. 18.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mandar Deepak Pawar Vs. the State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 649 has held as under: “The appellant and respondent No.2 were undisputedly in a consensual relationship from 2009 to 2011 (or 2013 as stated by the respondent No.2). It is the say of the respondent No.2 that the consensual physical relationship was on an assurance of marriage by the appellant. The complaint has been filed only in 2016 after three years, pursuant whereto FIR dated 16.12.2016 was registered under Section 376 and 420, IPC. On hearing learned counsel for parties, we find ex facie the registration of FIR in the present case is abuse of the criminal process. The parties chose to have physical relationship without marriage for a considerable period of time. For some reason, the parties fell apart. It can happen both before or after marriage. Thereafter also three years passed when respondent No.2 decided to register a FIR. The facts are so glaring as set out aforesaid by us that we have no hesitation in quashing the FIR dated 16.12.2016 and bringing the proceedings to a close. Permitting further proceedings under the FIR would amount to harassment to the appellant through the criminal process itself. We are fortified to adopt this course of action by the judicial view in (2019) 9 SCC 608 titled “Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.” where in the factual scenario where complainant was aware that there existed obstacles in marrying the accused and still continued to engage in sexual relations, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR. A distinction was made between a false promise to marriage which is given on understanding by the maker that it will be broken and a breach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled. This was in the context of Section 375 Explanation 2 and Section 90 of the IPC, 1860.” 18.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. the State of Maharashtra & Anr. This was in the context of Section 375 Explanation 2 and Section 90 of the IPC, 1860.” 18.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. the State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2019) 18 SCC 191 has held at paragraph Nos.20 and 21 as under: “20. With this factual background, the Court held that the girl had taken a conscious decision, after active application of mind to the events that had transpired. It was further held that at best, it is a case of breach of promise to marry rather than a case of false promise to marry, for which the accused is prima facie accountable for damages under civil law. It was held thus : (Deelip Singh [Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC 88 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 253], SCC p. 106, para 35) “35. The remaining question is whether on the basis of the evidence on record, it is reasonably possible to hold that the accused with the fraudulent intention of inducing her to sexual intercourse, made a false promise to marry. We have no doubt that the accused did hold out the promise to marry her and that was the predominant reason for the victim girl to agree to the sexual intimacy with him. PW 12 was also too keen to marry him as she said so specifically. But we find no evidence which gives rise to an inference beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had no intention to marry her at all from the inception and that the promise he made was false to his knowledge. No circumstances emerging from the prosecution evidence establish this fact. On the other hand, the statement of PW 12 that “later on”, the accused became ready to marry her but his father and others took him away from the village would indicate that the accused might have been prompted by a genuine intention to marry which did not materialise on account of the pressure exerted by his family elders. It seems to be a case of breach of promise to marry rather than a case of false promise to marry. On this aspect also, the observations of this Court in Uday case [Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 775] at para 24 come to the aid of the appellant.” 21. It seems to be a case of breach of promise to marry rather than a case of false promise to marry. On this aspect also, the observations of this Court in Uday case [Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 775] at para 24 come to the aid of the appellant.” 21. In Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 660, the Court has drawn a distinction between rape and consensual sex. This is a case of a prosecutrix aged 19 years at the time of the incident. She had an inclination towards the accused. The accused had been giving her assurances of the fact that he would get married to her. The prosecutrix, therefore, left her home voluntarily and of her own free will to go with the accused to get married to him. She called the accused on a phone number given to her by him, to ask him why he had not met her at the place that had been pre-decided by them. She also waited for him for a long time, and when he finally arrived, she went with him to a place called Karna Lake where they indulged in sexual intercourse. She did not raise any objection at that stage and made no complaints to anyone. Thereafter, she went to Kurukshetra with the accused, where she lived with his relatives. Here too, the prosecutrix voluntarily became intimate with the accused. She then, for some reason, went to live in the hostel at Kurukshetra University illegally, and once again came into contact with the accused at Birla Mandir there. Thereafter, she even proceeded with the accused to the old busstand in Kurukshetra, to leave for Ambala so that the two of them could get married at the court in Ambala. At the bus station, the accused was arrested by the police. The Court held that the physical relationship between the parties had clearly developed with the consent of the prosecutrix as there was neither a case of any resistance nor had she raised any complaint anywhere at any time, despite the fact that she had been living with the accused for several days and had travelled with him from one place to another. The Court further held that it is not possible to apprehend the circumstances in which a charge of deceit/rape can be levelled against the accused.” 18.4 It would also be pertinent to quote Sections 375, 376 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, which read as under: “[375. Rape.--A man is said to commit "rape" if he-- (a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or (b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or (c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or (d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions: First. Against her will. Secondly. Without her consent. Thirdly. With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthly. With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Fifthly. With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. Sixthly. With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age. Seventhly. When she is unable to communicate consent. Explanation 1. For the purposes of this section, "vagina" shall also include labia majora. Explanation 2. Sixthly. With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age. Seventhly. When she is unable to communicate consent. Explanation 1. For the purposes of this section, "vagina" shall also include labia majora. Explanation 2. Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act: Provided that a woman who does not physically resist to the act of penetration shall not by the reason only of that fact, be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity. Exception 1.A medical procedure or intervention shall not constitute rape. Exception 2. Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.” “Section 376. Punishment for rape. (1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which 1 [shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine]. Punishment for rape. (1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which 1 [shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine]. (2) Whoever,— (a) being a police officer, commits rape— (i) within the limits of the police station to which such police officer is appointed; or (ii) in the premises of any station house; or (iii) on a woman in such police officer's custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to such police officer; or (b) being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant's custody or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant; or (c) being a member of the armed forces deployed in an area by the Central or a State Government commits rape in such area; or (d) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a women's or children's institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or (e) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or (f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; or (g) commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or (h) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or * * * * * (j) commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving consent; or (k) being in a position of control or dominance over a woman, commits rape on such woman; or (l) commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical disability; or (m) while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or maims or disfigures or endangers the life of a woman; or (n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine. (3) Whoever, commits rape on a woman under sixteen years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim: Provided further that any fine imposed under this subsection shall be paid to the victim.”] 18.5 In view of the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and also keeping view the above settled propositions of law as quoted hereinabove. In the totality of the facts and circumstances and evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, there may be the breach of promise in regard to marry with her on the part of the petitioner; but neither the allegation nor the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer in regard to the fraud being played upon the victim in obtaining her consent to establish physical relation with her. As such, no alleged offence of rape as defined under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Particularly, in view of her consent being voluntary as provided in Explanation 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. 19. Section 354(C) of the Indian Penal Code reads as under: “[354C. Voyeurism.--Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation 1--For the purpose of this section, "private act" includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy and where the victim's genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public. Explanation 2."Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section.]” 19.1 So far as the allegations made under Section 354(C) of the Indian Penal Code in regard to capture nude image of a woman engaged in a private act is concerned, the petitioner has captured the nude photograph of the victim and threatened to make it viral and disseminate to third persons, as such, the offence under Section 354(C) of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused-petitioner in view of Explanation 2 of Section 354(C) of the Indian Penal Code. 20. Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under: “Section 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation. Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. 20.1 From the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, there are sufficient materials on record against the petitioner to make out the charge under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 21. 20.1 From the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, there are sufficient materials on record against the petitioner to make out the charge under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 21. So far as the contentions raised by the learned APP appearing for the State that charge has been framed and evidence has commenced during pendency of this Criminal Revision, the same is not tenable because on this ground, Criminal Revision cannot be said to have become infructuous. 21.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 551 at paragraph No.21 held as under: “21. It may be somewhat necessary to have a comparative examination of the powers exercisable by the court under these two provisions. There may be some overlapping between these two powers because both are aimed at securing the ends of justice and both have an element of discretion. But, at the same time, inherent power under Section 482 of the Code being an extraordinary and residuary power, it is inapplicable in regard to matters which are specifically provided for under other provisions of the Code. To put it simply, normally the court may not invoke its power under Section 482 of the Code where a party could have availed of the remedy available under Section 397 of the Code itself. The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code are of a wide magnitude and are not as limited as the power under Section 397. Section 482 can be invoked where the order in question is neither an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) nor a final order in the strict sense. Reference in this regard can be made to Raj Kapoor v. State. In that very case, this Court has observed that inherent power under Section 482 may not be exercised if the bar under Sections 397(2) and 397(3) applies, except in extraordinary situations, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. This itself shows the fine distinction between the powers exercisable by the Court under these two provisions. In that very case, the Court also considered as to whether the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 stand repelled when the revisional power under Section 397 overlaps. This itself shows the fine distinction between the powers exercisable by the Court under these two provisions. In that very case, the Court also considered as to whether the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 stand repelled when the revisional power under Section 397 overlaps. Rejecting the argument, the Court said that the opening words of Section 482 contradict this contention because nothing in the Code, not even Section 397, can affect the amplitude of the inherent powers preserved in so many terms by the language of Section 482. There is no total ban on the exercise of inherent powers where abuse of the process of the court or any other extraordinary situation invites the court’s jurisdiction. The limitation is selfrestraint, nothing more. The distinction between a final and interlocutory order is well known in law. The orders which will be free from the bar of Section 397(2) would be the orders which are not purely interlocutory but, at the same time, are less than a final disposal. They should be the orders which do determine some right and still are not finally rendering the court functus officio of the lis. The provisions of Section 482 are pervasive. It should not subvert legal interdicts written into the same Code but, however, inherent powers of the Court unquestionably have to be read and construed as free of restriction.” 21.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.472 of 2021 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10157 of 2019 decided on 17.05.2021 at paragraph Nos.15 held as under: “15. The correct position of law as laid down in Madhu Limaye (supra), thus, is that orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are therefore not affected by the bar of Section 397 (2) of CrPC. That apart, this Court in the above-cited cases has unequivocally acknowledged that the High Court is imbued with inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice having regard to the facts and circumstances of individual cases. As a caveat it may be stated that the High Court, while exercising its afore-stated jurisdiction ought to be circumspect. As a caveat it may be stated that the High Court, while exercising its afore-stated jurisdiction ought to be circumspect. The discretion vested in the High Court is to be invoked carefully and judiciously for effective and timely administration of criminal justice system. This court, nonetheless, does not recommend a complete hands off approach. Albeit, there should be interference, may be, in exceptional cases, failing which there is likelihood of serious prejudice to the rights of a citizen. For example, when the contents of a complaint or the other purported material on record is a brazen attempt to persecute an innocent person, it becomes imperative upon the Court to prevent the abuse of process of law.” 22. Sections 2 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 read as under: “[Section 2. Definition of “dowry”. In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-- (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before 1[or any time after the marriage] 2[in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include] dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. * * * * * Explanation II.--The expression "valuable security" has the same meaning as in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).] [4. Penalty for demanding dowry.--If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.]” 22.1 So far as the allegation in regard to demand of dowry of Rs.12 lakhs in cash and a Swift Dzire Car is concerned, the same demand was made by the father and brother of the petitioner. Amit Kumar Barnwal, who had also given his acquiescence to the same demand. This allegation is made by the victim herself and same kind of statement has been given by the brother of victim herself, father of the victim and mother of the victim as well. Moreover, from the WhatsApp messages also for the demand of dowry corroborated the prosecution case. As such, there are sufficient materials available on record to frame the charge against the accused-petitioner under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 23. In view of the findings given hereinabove, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below needs interference and this Criminal Revision deserves to be partly allowed. 24. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this Criminal Revision is hereby partly allowed and the order passed by the learned Court below is set aside up to the extent and modified as stated hereinabove. 25. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Court concerned through ‘FAX’