JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in connection with Simdega P.S. Case No.153 of 2024 in which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 376 , 313, 504, 506, 323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, without having any intention to marry the prosecutrix since the beginning, as he was married earlier but suppressing his earlier marriage from the prosecutrix, by falsely representing the prosecutrix that the petitioner was a bachelor, fraudulently obtained the consent of the prosecutrix by forming a web of love and thus, committed rape upon the prosecutrix and made her pregnant and when the prosecutrix became pregnant, the petitioner without the consent of the prosecutrix, caused the miscarriage of the child and later on intentionally insulted and criminally intimidated her, besides causing hurt to her. On the basis of the written-report submitted by the prosecutrix, Simdega P.S. Case No.153 of 2024 was registered and police took up the investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police found the allegation against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences in respect of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega has taken cognizance and basing upon the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega has taken cognizance of the said offences as already indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the informant is a major lady and the relationship between the parties was a consensual one. It is next submitted that the relationship between the parties continued for several years and both the petitioner and the informant are employed in the Police Department of Government of Jharkhand. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 5. It is next submitted that the relationship between the parties continued for several years and both the petitioner and the informant are employed in the Police Department of Government of Jharkhand. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that it is a settled principle of law that if an accused without having any intention to marry the prosecutrix since the very beginning resorted to fraud and obtains the consent of the victim for giving in to his sexual desire, that cannot be treated as a consent and such act of the accused person will amount to rape and this is exactly the case here, where the petitioner, without having any intention to marry the victim since the very beginning, fraudulently obtained her consent by misrepresentation and fraud and additionally there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of causing the miscarriage of the prosecutrix without her consent. Hence, both the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 313 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE which are triable by the court of Sessions, are made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that it is also a settled principle of law that the question of consent of a prosecutrix is really a matter of defence by the accused, hence, the defence of the petitioner cannot be put forth before the evidence of the prosecution begins nor this Court can enter into a mini trial to verify the defence of the petitioner at this stage when the prosecution evidence is yet to begin. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2005) 1 SCC 88 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had the occasion to consider the question “will a promise to marry without the intention to marry give rise to misconception of fact within the meaning of Section 190 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE ” and inter alia the same was answered by holding that a representation deliberately made by the accused which was really a mere hoax, with a view to elicit the assent of the victim without having the intention or inclination to marry her at the very inception, will vitiate the consent, ostensibly given by the victim. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uday vs. State of inter alia Karnataka reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46 has observed that a false promise is not a fact within the meaning of INDIAN PENAL CODE but there is no straitjacket formula in this regard. The evidence in each case in the surrounding circumstances have to be carefully considered before reaching a conclusion. 8. It is also pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the question of consent of the prosecutrix is really a matter of defence by the accused and it is for him to place the materials from which the court can come to a conclusion that the prosecutrix was a consenting party as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of H.P. vs. Shree Kant Shekari reported in (2004) 8 SCC 153 : AIR 2004 SC 4404 . 9. So far as the offence punishable under Sections 313 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is concerned, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the prosecutrix was pregnant and the petitioner caused the miscarriage of the prosecutrix. The petitioner did it voluntarily. The miscarriage was not caused in good faith for saving the life of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix did not consent to the miscarriage. The petitioner did it voluntarily. The miscarriage was not caused in good faith for saving the life of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix did not consent to the miscarriage. So, these evidence are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 313 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE besides there are other allegations also against the petitioner. 10. Keeping in view the facts of the case and as the cognizance of the offence has already been taken but the consideration of charge is yet to take place, in view of the nature of the allegation, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed rather it is left open for the trial court to consider the materials at the time of considering the framing of charge and if necessary at subsequent stage also. 11. Hence, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.