Facts: The applicant was accused of offences under Sections 376 (rape) and 417 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code based on an FIR lodged by the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix, a divorcee with two children, alleged that the applicant promised to marry her and take care of her children, based on which she had a physical relationship with him. This relationship continued for over two years. The applicant sought discharge from the charges, arguing the relationship was consensual.
Procedural Posture: The applicant filed a Criminal Revision Application in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, who had rejected his application for discharge in Sessions Trial No. 281/2014.
Issue: Did the High Court err in rejecting the application for discharge, considering the nature of the relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix, and whether the "consent" given by the prosecutrix could be considered a "misconception of fact" under Section 90 of the IPC? More broadly, what are the considerations for a court when deciding a discharge application?
Holding: The High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Application, quashing the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and discharging the applicant of the offences under Sections 376 and 417 of the IPC.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix was consensual. The prosecutrix, being a mature, married woman and mother of two children, was aware of the implications of her actions. The Court also noted that the relationship continued for over two years, negating the argument that the "consent" was given under a "misconception of fact" in close proximity to the act, as required under Section 90 of the IPC. The court emphasized that at the stage of considering an application for discharge, the court must proceed on the assumption that the material brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged. The court cited several Supreme Court cases, including State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao and Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, to support its reasoning regarding the principles for considering discharge applications.