IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40256 of 2008 Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Kumar Yadav, Son of Jagdish Yadav, Resident of Village Jiyanganj Madhya Tola, PS Sarsi, District Purnia ---- Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar ---- Opposite Party For the Petitioner : Mr. N.A. Shamsi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, A.P.P. ----------- 2 27.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.5.2008 and subsequent revisional order dated 7.8.2008. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had sexual relationship with the informant over a period of time sometime in April, 2007. She became pregnant because of this physical relationship and thereafter has filed this case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(i)(xii) of the SC/ST Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case would come under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code rather than 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that it cannot be said that the petitioner had actually entered into a relationship with the lady concerned. 2 This Court assumes that there was a physical relationship in which certain promises were exchanged between the parties which can only come under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In my opinion, learned counsel for the petitioner has a valid point which ought to be considered at the stage of framing of charges. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)