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