case is now argued by Sri.S.Nirmal Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner/accused is that even going by the admitted allegations of the prosecutrix in the prosecution materials, it can be seen that the alleged sexual relationship between the parties would have occurred only on the basis of consensus and volition of the parties and that even according to her, the parties were in love for quite some time and later they were working in the same place and that they had sexual relationship and subsequently that too that the petitioner had promised her that he would marry her, which was breached by him, etc. and that he had persuaded her to conduct medical termination of pregnancy, which arose out of the said relationship. To appreciate this contention, it will be more pertinent to refer to the entire entirety of the First Information Statement given by the 2nd respondent/lady defacto complainant before the police, which triggered the instant Annexure-A3 Crime No.611/2018 of Kannammaly Police Station (which was later transferred to the Hill Palace Police Station, wherein it was re-numbered as the instant Crime No.1185/2018). The said FI Statement, which has been produced as Annexure-A3 along with Crl.M.A.No.4/2019, filed in the above Crl.M.C., reads as follows:
