The High Court · 2025

petition under section 4g2 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of g|.ounO, oi Criminal iretrtion, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedrng. i"'.dc.r.r" roBB of 2019 dated on the^file of Judicial First Class trrlagistrate, (Spl. rv"li-f" C"''tl at Sangareddy Medak Distrlct against the Petitioner/Accused I.A. N O:1 OF 2O21 Petition under Section 482 of Ct 'P 'C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Gro-und, or cririnrr petitionjhe Hioh court may be pleased to of iOtg on the file of Judicial qrant stay of all further ptt"""Oi"gt i" C,C Jt9.1O8B First Class lvlagistrate' (Spl M;i;"C"urt' inctuOins the appearance of the Accused till il;;;p"*i;f"the ruain ouastr Petition in the interest of the justice' ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumof Grounds of Criminal petiiion and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BARLA MALLESHYADAV,AdvocateforthePetitionerandthePublicProsecutoronbehalf ofthe Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent No 2 The Court made the following ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.9479 OF 2OZL ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Sectio n 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, Lg73 (fo. short .'Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner/Accused, questioning the criminal proceedings against him for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 493 of the Indian Penal code.

2. The 2.d respondent, who is a Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP) by occupation, was running Meeta Clinic at Kolbai Sadasivpet. The petitioner was residing near the clinic of the 2.a respondent/ complainant.

3. The petitioner informed 2"d respondent that he was not married and did not have any bad habits, and he started moving closely with her. While the complainant was travelling from Nandikandi to Sadasivpet, the petitioner used to follow her and expressed his desire to marry her. On 05.08.2019, the petitioner took the 2"d respondent to a temple, put vermilion on her forehead, and convinced 2'd respondent that they both were married. They started having a physical relationship over a period of time. When the petitioner started avoiding her, the complainant enquired and came to know that the petitioner was already married and had 2 children. Since then, the petitioner started avoiding her completely' Further, the petitioner took amounts of Rs'2O,OOO / -, 3O'OOO/-' and 7O,OOO I - on different dates, stating that he was constructing a house where both of them could live. Since the petitioner suppressed the fact of his first marriage, married the complainant' and entered into a live-in relationship along with a physical relationship over a period of time, the complainant sought the intervention of police to initiate action against the petitioner'

4. The complaint was registered under Section 42O of Indian penal code for cheating and under Section 493 of IPC for cohabiting with the complainant by inducing a belief of lawful marriage '

5. Learned Counsel appearing for ' the petitioner would submit that the offence of cheating or cohabitation by inducing the belief of a lawful marriage does not arise, since the complainant was already married to someone else as on the date of entering into a relationship with the petitioner. Neither the ingredients of Section 42O r,Lor Section 493 of IPC are made out'

6. Learned Counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in XXXX a. State of Madhga Pradesh & Anothert (CrLA.No.3437 of 2023 dated 06.03'2024), wherein it was held as follows: ' izoz+y I scn toe = 2024 INSC 181 I 3 " B.From the contents of the complaint, on the basis of uhich FIR tuas got registered and the statement got recorded bg the complainan| it is euident that th-ere u)as no promise to marry initiallg uhen the relations bettueen the parties sta.rted in the aear 2017. In ang pgtse, euen on the dates ushen the complainant cLlleqes that the parties had phusical rei.tttions, she utas alreadtt married. Slrcfalselg claimed that diuorce from h-er earlier marrioge took place on 10.12.2018. Houteuer, the fact remains that decree of diuorce u.tas passed onlg on 13.01.2O21. It k not a case where the co lainant was o an immature aqe tuho could not foresee her welfare and take iqht decision. She tuas a qrown up ladu about ten uears elder to the appellant. Sl-Le uas matured and intelliqent enouqh to understand the consequences of the moral ond im.moral acts for u.thich she consented duinq subsistence of her earlier it was a case of betrauinq her husband. It is mariaqe. In fact, the admitted case of the prosecutrk that euen afier the appellant shified to Maharashtra for his job, he used to come ond stag uith the familg and theg u-tere liuing as hu.sband and utfe. It u.tas also the stand taken bg the appellant that he l&d aduanced loan of { 1,OO,O00/ - to the prosecutrLr through banking channel which was not returned back."

7. He also relied upon the Judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Pinki Pramanik a. State of West Bengalz, wherein it was held as follows: "On the aboue reosoning tttis Court finds m.erit in Shn Grouer's submission that the tuLo charges under Section 493 IPC and under Section 376 IPC are incongruous to each other. mutuallg 2 2014 scc ooline cal 18832 4 exclusiue and therefore cannot be sustained in the same complaint. In other uords, the petitioner could either make a false promise of marriage or, alternafruelg, could induce the belief that the complainant was in lautful marriage u-tith her but not both at the same time. Therefore, on the basis of the aboue reasoning this Court finds the order impugned passed bg the Ld. Triol Court directing tial under Section -493 IPC to be un^sustainable."

8. Learned Counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court.in Ro;m Chandrq. Blrea,gdt o. State of Jharkhands, wherein it was held as follows: "As we are concerned u.tith the prouisions of Section 493 IPC, it tuould. be just and proper to look at the said section before u-te deal uith the subject: *493. Coho;bitqtion caused. bg a man d.eceittullg inducing a betie! of tauful marriage.- Euery man who bg deceit causes anA uoman uLho is not latufullg married to him to belieue that she is latufullg married to him and to cohabit or hque sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished u-tith imprisonment of either description for a term ulhich mau ertend to ten gears, and shall also be liable to fine." Upon perusal of Section 493 IPC, to establish that a person has committed an offence under the said section' it must be estoblished that a person had deceitfutlg induced a belief to a woman, u.tho is not lorttfullg married to him, that she is a latafullg married uife of that person and thereupon she slnuld cohnbit or sttould haue had serual intercourse wtth that person- Looking at the aforestoted sectiory it is clear that tlrc acansed must induce a t oman, uho is not lattLfullg married to him, to belieue that he is '1zoi:; r scc soz I I 5 married to her and as a result of the aforestated representation, the woman should belieue that strc utas lawfullg married to him and. there shoutd- be cohabitation or sexual intercourse as a result of the deception. "

9. karned Oounsel also relied upon the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Aran Singh and others a. State of U.P, through its Secretary and. another+, wherein it was held that:

427. Tlrc essence of an offence under Section 493 IpC is, therefore, practice of deception bg a man on a u)oman as a consequence. of tuhich the uoman is led to belieue that she is lawfullg married to him although she is not and then make her cohabit uith him. "

10. The Honourable Supreme Court, in A.M.Mohan a. The S;toite rep. bg SHO o.nd otherss, heid as follows: "78. Section 42O of the Penal Code reads thus: "42O. Cheating and dishonestlg inducing d.etiaery oJ propertg.-WTneuer cheats and therebg dishonestlg induces the person deceiued to deliuer anA propertg to anll person, or to make, alter or destrog the uhole or ang part of a ualuable secuitg, or angthing uhich i-s signed. or sealed", and uhich i.s capable of being conuerted into a ualuable secuitg, shalt be punished. utith imprisonment of either description for a term uhich mag ertend to seuen Aears, and shall also be liabte to fine." n lzozoy : scc z:e ' 2024 SCC ODLire SC 339 6

79. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follotus: 79.1. A person must commit the offence of cheatirLg under Section 415; and

79.2. The person cheated must be dishonesttg induced. to (a) deliuer propertg to ang person; or (b) make, alter or destrog ualuable securitg or angthing signed or sealed ond capable of being conuerted into ualuable seanitg. 2O. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420."

11. The complainant was running a clinic and was al RMP. Even according to her, the petitioner was already married before she got acquainted with him. An ollence under Section 493 of IPC would be made out if the petitioner had practiced deception ald, asa consequence of such deception, the complainant believed that she was lawfully married to him and cohabited with him. The complainant was already married and not divorced. Therefore, the question of her believing that she was lawfully married to the petitioner does not arise in the present circumstances. She is a working woman and mature enough to understand the consequences of entering into a physical relationship with another person. Whiie her marriage was subsisting, she maintained a physical relationship with the petitioner over a period of time. The said reiationship, from the facts narrated by her, appears to be 7 consensual and not on account of any inducement or false promise by the petitioner.

12. Even accepting the version of the complainant that the petitioner did not inform her about his marriage eariier, it would not amount to practicing deception in the present facts of the case. Both the petitioner and the complainant were already married, ald on their own, entered into a physical relationship. After considerable I time, since the relationship soured, the complaint appears to have been filed.

13. Considering the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in the Jtrdgments cited above, this Court finds that none of the ingredients of either Section 420 or section 493 of IPC are made out.

14. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioner in CC.No. 1088 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of Fir:st Class (Special Mobile Court), are quashed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII Sd/- P.CH. NAGABUSHAMBA, EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER The Judicial First crass Magistrate, Speciar Mobire court, at Sanga Reddy Medak District. The Station House Officer, Sadashivapet police Station, Sanga Reddy^, Medak District. Two CCs to Public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OtJT) One CC to SRt. BARLA MALLESH YADAV, Advocate [OPUCJ Two CD Copies \ To 1.

3. 4 5 & ( * o a tt\ Sf. I4 r{j ((, ( o l 02 !IAY 20a I , HIGH COURT KSJ DATED:111O412025 ORDER CRLP.No.9479 ot 2021 ) i -,(,l a* , ?4 ALLOWTNG TT{E C R I,. I'E'I'T'IION