Mukesh & Ors vs State & Anr on 3 October, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3198 / 2017

1. Mukesh S/o Late Shri Banshi Lal Khatik, R/o Khatik Mohalla,
Panchmuki Road, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

2. Raju Deedwaniya, S/o Late Shri Banshi Lal Khatik, R/o 10-I-12
R C Vyas Colony, Hal Shubhash Nagar, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

3. Seeta Khatik D/o Late Shri Banshi Lal Khatik, R/o Banoda,
District Bhilwara (Raj.)

4. Dinesh Khatik S/o Late Shri Banshi Lal Khatik, R/o Ajmeri Gate
Banoda, Tehsil Banoda, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

2. Beena D/o Ratan Lal Khatik, R/o Khatik Mohalla, P.S. Kotwali,
Chittorgarh (Raj.)

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Farzand Ali, Mr. Naman Mohnot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. MS Panwar, PP
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
03/10/2017

1. Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.98/2013

registered at P.S. Kotwali, District Chittorgarh for the offence

under Section 406, 420, 376 of the IPC and subsequent

proceedings.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown that once

the investigation has complete and come to the conclusion that

there was lawful marriage may be customary between the
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-3198/2017]

petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 then the ingredients of Section

493 shall not be attracted as on the bare perusal of Section 493

of IPC, an offence relates to deceitful inducing a belief of lawful

marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further averred

that the place of residence for the in-laws and the couple was

different and therefore, the case under Section 498A and 406 of

the IPC could not be made out against the in-laws.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out

that no ornaments are in possession of the petitioners and hence,

the offence under Section 498 A, 406, 493 all are not made out.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submission

and submitted a status report and Section 376 of IPC has not

made out. Apparently, on account of the lawful valid marriage

between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the

record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that Section 493 of

IPC is not made on the face of it, Section 493 of IPC reads as

follows :-

“493. Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a
belief of lawful marriage.–Every man who by deceit
causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to
believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit
or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine. ”

6. On the basis of the complaint and on the investigation

report, once it has been concluded that the petitioner No.1 and

respondent No.2 were residing due to lawful wedlock. The
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-3198/2017]

prosecution case under Section 493 of the IPC is apparently not

made out. The cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a

belief of lawful marriage is very specific ingredient and once the

lawful marriage has been established between the parties then

such offence cannot be sustained in the eye of law, hence, the

present misc. petition is partly allowed and the FIR No.98/2013

registered at P.S. Kotwali, District Chittorgarh is quashed to the

extent of allegation under Section 493 of the IPC only.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

suhdeer

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *