ORDER : 1. This Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) registered at Crime No. 126/2023 dated 27-2-2023, at Police Station Madhav Nagar, District-Ujjain (M.P.), as also the charge-sheet connected therewith, and the subsequent proceedings pending in the trial Court under sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the prosecutrix aged about 24 years, a resident of Ujjain came in contact with the petitioner through some common friends in the year 2021, and started conversing with each other through Instagram, and after sometime the petitioner was also selected in Army, and after around 8 to 10 months, i.e., on 6-9-2021, the petitioner came to Ujjain on leave and met her in her room, where he forced himself on her despite the her objection, he also assured her that he would marry her. Thereafter, he started coming to her room regularly and everyday he used to have sexual intercourse with heron the pretext that he would marry her. After his leave came to an end, he went back on 9-10-2021. He again came to Ujjain on leave from 24-10-2021 to 24-11-2021, and at that time also, he had physical relationship with her despite her protest, and when this relationship came to her family members’ knowledge, they went to petitioner’s house to talk about with his parents about prosecutrix’s marriage with the petitioner to which, they simply refused, and thereafter, the petitioner also stopped talking to her on phone, and again when he came back to Ujjain in the month of January, 2022, he started talking to her and again came to her room where he again committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage, and thereafter, he went back to Jaisalmer in the month February, 2022, and subsequently he also blocked her on Instagram, WhatsApp etc. and despite her efforts to talk to him, he refused to talk to her, hence, she made a complaint to police station Madhav Nagar, Ujjain on 14-7-2022. Thereafter, when the family members of the petitioner were called to the concerned police station, they agreed to the engagement of the petitioner with the prosecutrix, and the engagement also took place on 25-7-2022. Thereafter, when the family members of the petitioner were called to the concerned police station, they agreed to the engagement of the petitioner with the prosecutrix, and the engagement also took place on 25-7-2022. But, thereafter, again the family members of the petitioner refused to marry their son to the complainant. Thus, the FIR was lodged on 27-2-2023. 3. Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the FIR clearly reveals that it was a consensual relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, who was a matured woman aged 24 years, and the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of around two years, and even when the petitioner refused to marry the complainant in the month of December, 2021, she again had no difficulty in having physical relationship with the petitioner in the month January and February, 2022. 4. In support of his submission and that it was a consensual relationship and does not amount to rape; counsel has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2019) 3 SCC (Cri.) 903; Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 3 SCC (Cri.) 672; Udham Singh S/o Raghjunath Singh vs. State of M.P. and another, 2023 (2) M.P.L.J. 328 and Mayank S/o Vinod Tiwari vs. State of M.P. and another, 2023 (2) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 123. 5. Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/ complainant on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the prosecutrix was allured by the petitioner to enter into physical relationship on the pretext of marriage and the petitioner being an Army officer ought to have honoured his promise, but he has continuously committed the offence as the complainant/prosecutrix also allowed herself to be exploited as she was assured by the petitioner that he would marry her. 6. Shri Sameer Verma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State has also opposed the prayer. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the case diary/record. 8. From the record, it is apparent that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were having an affair which also involved physical relationship. 6. Shri Sameer Verma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State has also opposed the prayer. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the case diary/record. 8. From the record, it is apparent that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were having an affair which also involved physical relationship. It is also apparent that the prosecutrix did not lodge the report/FIR soon after she was lured into physical relationship by the petitioner on the pretext of marriage on 23-11-2017. It is also surprising that even after she was rejected by the parents of the petitioner, of course, the petitioner also had no intentions of going against the will of his parents. The contention of Shri Virendra Sharma that it was the petitioner’s parents who said not to the prosecutrix and not the petitioner, is a lame excuse to shun the responsibility of his actions, because had he been so obedient son, he should also have taken the permission of his parents in the first place before assuring the prosecutrix of marriage, and taking advantage of her. 9. Be that as it may, for the bad or the ugly or the worse, the concept of live in relationship or intimacy before marriage is here to stay in the society, no matter how much the same is criticized, and no matter how many FIRs are lodged under its garb; thus, until the legislature comes up with some law, legalizing and regulating the live in relationship, the only caution is to steer clear from the same, otherwise, one should not cry foul after entering into it. 10. This Court also finds that to bring home the charges of rape, unless the tangible evidence is produced that the intercourse fell under the definition of rape, there is no point in beating about the bush that it was under the pretext of marriage, because under section 375, no such description of rape is provided. Section 375 of Indian Penal Code reads 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. Section 375 of Indian Penal Code reads 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. (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. (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. (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 - 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.” 11. A perusal of the aforesaid section clearly reveals that when a woman is persuaded to have sex with a man under any pretext not falling under the description as provided under section 375 of Indian Penal Code, it is not rape. Although, a person is not expected to know about such nuances of the definition of rape before entering into such relationship, but, it is the law of the land, and as the maxim goes, “Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat” means ignorance of law is no excuse, there is no reprieve or relaxation for an aggrieved person who has to face the consequence of her actions or inaction. 12. At this juncture, it would also be apt to refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675 wherein, it is held as under: 21. Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case like this, 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, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the Court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage by the accused and whether the consent involved was given after wholly understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the Court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage by the accused and whether the consent involved was given after wholly understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of misrepresentation made to her by the accused, or where an accused on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to do so. Such cases must be treated differently. An accused can be convicted for rape only if the Court reaches a conclusion that the intention of the accused was mala fide, and that he had clandestine motives. xxx xxx xxx 24. Hence, it is evident that there must be adequate evidence to show that at the relevant time i.e. at the initial stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to marry the victim. There may, of course, be circumstances, when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances. The “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 term “misconception of fact”, the fact must have an immediate relevance”. Section 90, Indian Penal Code 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. This judgment has also been followed by Supreme Court in subsequent judgments i.e. in the cases of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra) and Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (supra). 13. This judgment has also been followed by Supreme Court in subsequent judgments i.e. in the cases of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra) and Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (supra). 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, since it is a case where the prosecutrix has alleged rape on the pretext of marriage, and there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner never intended to marry the prosecutrix, and on the contrary, the case of the prosecutrix is that her engagement with the petitioner also took place on 25-7-2022, this Court has no hesitation to hold that no charge of rape is made out against the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, FIR registered at Crime No. 126/2023 dated 27-2-2023, at Police Station Madhav Nagar, District-Ujjain (M.P.), as also the charge-sheet connected therewith, and the subsequent proceedings pending in the trial Court under sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are hereby quashed and the petitioner stands discharged from the offence. 15. Petition stands allowed and disposed of.