1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 232 OF 2010 Sachin s/o Nathuji Nagrare . v. The State of Mah. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Counsel for the for the applicant absent. Mr. A.D. Sonak, A.P.P. for the Respondent. ..... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 17 th FEBRUARY,_2010. This application is directed against the order dated 4.8.2009 passed by District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in S.T. No. 505 of 2008, by which the learned trial Judge rejected the application for discharge that was made by the present applicant/accused. I have gone through the impugned order as well as the connected papers so also the first information report filed in the present application. The first information report as well as statements of prosecutrix as a matter of fact clearly make out a prima facie case for the offence for which the applicant is being charged. The 2 contention that was raised before the trial Court by the applicant that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and therefore there was no question of offence of rape being committed, cannot be examined unless the evidence is recorded. The applicant is under wrong impression that merely because the prosecutrix is aged about 23 years and was pregnant from him due to consent, no offence of rape would be constituted. Whether the impression carried by the applicant is correct or not is a matter to be resolved during trial upon taking evidence of prosecution and cannot be decided at the threshold. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order rejecting the application for discharge which is impugned before me in the present application. Since the Sessions trial is of the year 2008 it would be appropriate that trial Court proceeds to hold the trial and completes the same within six months from the date of receipt of Writ of this Court. Application dismissed. JUDGE /TA/ 3