12. Per contra, Mr.Pratap, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1 st respondent submitted that the law enforcing agency, after detailed investigation and recording the statements of the witnesses and collecting the relevant materials, upon proper satisfaction and only after finding the sexual relationship between the petitioner and the deceased was only on account of the petitioner inducing the deceased with the hope of marriage and, thereafter, the disinclination of the petitioner to marry the deceased after receiving sexual favours for over a period of six years, had charged the petitioner of the offences aforesaid and the act of the petitioner with regard to the sexual favours received and disinclination to marry the deceased would grossly attract Section 376 IPC and the result of his refusal to marry the deceased, had led the deceased to commit suicide, which also attracts Section 306 IPC and the whole act of the petitioner/accused aforesaid amounts to cheating the deceased, which falls u/s 417 IPC and the charges have been made out on the basis of the materials collated, which, in the prima facie opinion of the trial court, were suffice to proceed against the petitioner and, therefore, cognizance has been taken and in the above backdrop, no interference is warranted with the said cognizance taken by the trial court. It is further submission of the learned Government Advocate that all the points raised on behalf of the petitioner are points that are to be canvassed at the time of trial and cannot be adjudicated at the threshold when the petition is filed for quashment and, accordingly, prays for dismissal of the present petition.
