Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 715 (TS)

Tapan Sumanth v. State of Telangana

2024-09-10

K.SUJANA

body2024
ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in FIR.No.245 of 2024 dated 07.05.2024 before the Gudimalkapur Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 493, 419, 420, 312 and 504 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against her husband who is petitioner herein, stating that she had acquaintance with her husband since childhood as their parents were family friends. It is stated that her husband started to propose her since the time when he was in 7th standard and always said that he would marry her with or without her father’s consent. It is alleged that the petitioner used to cohabit with respondent No.2 since fifteen years and got her pregnant twice and made her believe that he would marry her but he did not do so. It is further alleged that the petitioner attempted to rape respondent No.2 and when she agitated against him, he still made her believe that he would marry her once he is settled. Further, in August 2023 the petitioner asked her to come to India saying that he will move to USA along with her but then the respondent No.2 found that he was cheating on her with another girl by name Sakshi and when respondent No.2 called the said Sakshi, she revealed that petitioner was in relation with her and that she is conceived which would reveal that petitioner cheated her as well. 3. It is further alleged that when the respondent No.2 revealed the said state of affairs to the parents of petitioner, they asked her to take things casual and move on, due to which, the respondent No.2 was compelled to attempt suicide. However, the petitioner convinced her that he would marry her and also appeared before the Office of S.R.O. in Attapur and applied for register marriage but after the incubation period, the petitioner denied to marry her and the same caused lot of hardship, suffering and prejudice to the respondent No.2 and her family. Being aggrieved by the said mental and physical harassment, the respondent No.2 lodged complaint praying to take action against the petitioner. 4. Being aggrieved by the said mental and physical harassment, the respondent No.2 lodged complaint praying to take action against the petitioner. 4. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police registered an FIR against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 493, 419, 420, 312 and 504 of IPC. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed. 5. Heard Sri Mohd. Nazeeruddin Khan, learned counsel representing Sri S.Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 – State, and Sri Shashibhushan, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that even if the allegations leveled against the petitioner are taken in its entirety, the same can be summed up as baseless and vague. He contended that Section 493 of IPC penalizes a man who deceitfully convinces a woman that they are lawfully married but the said man is not lawful husband of a woman and out of such deceit, he induces a woman to cohabit with him or have sexual intercourse with him and that there are no such instances in the present case whereunder the petitioner attempted to convince the respondent No.2 that they were legally married. In support of the said contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Bhagat Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 1 SCC 562 wherein it was stated that “if a woman is induced to change her status from that of an unmarried to that of a married woman with all the duties and obligations pertaining to the changed relationship and that result is accomplished by deceit, such woman within the law can be said to have been deceived and the offence under Section 493 IPC is brought home”. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner incessantly contended that Sections 419, 420 and 504 of IPC are not applicable in the case of petitioner stating that Section 419 of IPC penalizes cheating by personation which is defined in Section 416 of IPC which states that a person pretending to be another person and cheats somebody then he is guilty of cheating by personation and the averments of the complaint would show no such traces. He lamented that when the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the compliant are taken on its face value, nowhere there is any instance to attract Section 420 of IPC. He lamented that when the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the compliant are taken on its face value, nowhere there is any instance to attract Section 420 of IPC. While placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) Vs. Nimra Cerglass Techies (P) Limited, (2016) 1 SCC 348 the learned counsel for petitioner asserted that the complaint averments remain silent with regard to any dishonest inducement or intention on the part of the petitioner to deliver property. Further, the petitioner has nowhere made any false promise to the respondent No.2 with regard to marriage, as such, strongly contended that constituting Section 420 of IPC against the petitioner is irrelevant and deliberate. In addition to the above, with regard to the contention that the petitioner has made no false promise to marry the respondent No.2, the learned counsel for petitioner averred that petitioner himself had taken positive steps to solemnise his marriage with respondent No.2 and had not maintained a sexual relationship with her on the pretext of false promise to marry. He contended that Section 504 of IPC is also baseless as the same pertains to intentional insult with the intent to provoke breach of peace and no such averments or allegations are made by the respondent No.2 in her complaint. 8. In addition, learned counsel for petitioner contended that even offence under Section 312 of IPC does not constitute against the petitioner as the averments of the complaint do not disclose any essential ingredients of Section 312 of IPC viz., i) concerned woman got pregnant ; ii) the accused caused the women to miscarry ; iii) that such act on part of the accused was voluntary ; iv) that the miscarriage was not carried out in good faith to save the woman’s life. Therefore, while reiterating that the offences as alleged against the petitioner are merely baseless and vague, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 9. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent No.1 – State, contended that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner/accused and that the matter requires trial. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 10. 9. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent No.1 – State, contended that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner/accused and that the matter requires trial. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complaint strongly opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and contended that from the day of relationship, the attitude of the parents of petitioner/accused was insulting and they told the respondent No.2 that her relationship with their son would not survive. He asserted that on believing the sweet words of petitioner/accused that he would marry her, on 05.01.2024 the respondent No.2 returned to India and even gave an intimation notice under Section 6 of the Special Marriage Act and accordingly both exchanged rings. He lamented that according to Hindu marriage customs if engagement has taken place, it would be assumed that the marriage is fixed. He averred that in view of no change in the attitude of petitioner/accused, though respondent No.2 attempted several times to contact him, he did not bother to respond initially and later conveyed that he has no intention to marry her and he wants to end his relationship with her, which would clearly reveal that he has been dishonest to respondent No.2 and has cheated her. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition as the same lacks merits. 11. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the sum and substance of the allegations levelled against the petitioner are that under the guise of getting married, he has cheated respondent No.2 by maintaining a sexual relationship with her out of which she even got conceived but later on he denied to marry her and it was revealed that he had been cheating on another girl as well. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that though petitioner promised to marry respondent No.2 and has also appeared before the S.R.O. in Attapur and applied for register marriage but after the incubation period, he has swiftly denied to marry her which caused lot of mental agony to respondent No.2 and her family as well. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 493, 419, 420, 312 and 504 of IPC. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 493, 419, 420, 312 and 504 of IPC. It is needless to mention that the learned counsel for petitioner has strongly opposed all the allegations leveled against the petitioner. 12. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that as per Section 493 of IPC, a 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, whereas, in the case on hand it is noticed that the respondent No.2 herself stated that petitioner promised her that he would get married and under the guise of marriage she got in physical relationship with petitioner which clearly reveals that there are no ingredients of Section 493 of IPC. That apart, as far as Section 312 of IPC is concerned, it is seen that except mere allegation that petitioner got the child aborted, there are no averments made in the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 that the same was forcefully insisted upon by petitioner or that he is responsible for her abortion. That being so, there are no just and proper ingredients in the case on hand to constitute offence under Section 312 of IPC. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 493 and 312 of IPC are liable to be quashed. 13. At this juncture, though learned counsel for the petitioner incessantly contended that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420 and 504 of IPC are also liable to be quashed as there are no averments which would show that petitioner had been cheating respondent No.2 by personation and there are no traces in the complaint with regard to petitioner insulting the respondent No.2 intentionally with a motive to provoke breach of peace. Therefore, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420 and 504 of IPC as well. 14. In view of the above submission made by learned counsel for petitioner, it is relevant to note that it was averred in the complaint that petitioner had been in relation with another girl as well and the same gives rise to doubt with regard to his conduct. 14. In view of the above submission made by learned counsel for petitioner, it is relevant to note that it was averred in the complaint that petitioner had been in relation with another girl as well and the same gives rise to doubt with regard to his conduct. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the factual background of the case is such that there are issues which require full fledged trial and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420 and 504 of IPC cannot be quashed at this stage as the matter is at the stage of FIR. 15. In view thereof, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed, only to the extent of quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused under Sections 493 and 312 of IPC in FIR.No.245 of 2024 dated 07.05.2024 before the Gudimalkapur Police Station, Hyderabad. However, the investigation with regard to proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420 and 504 of IPC may go on. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.