Allegations of unwilling cohabitation and refusal to solemnize a marriage constitute cheating under IPC, despite existing marital ties, necessitating trial evaluation rather than dismissal at the preliminary stage.

JUDGMENT :

Bibhas Ranjan De, J.

1. The instant revision application has been preferred with a prayer for quashing the charge sheet no. 227 of 2023 corresponding to Keshiary Police Station Case no. 56 of 2023 dated 18.02.2023 under Sections 376 (2)(n)/417/120-B/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC ), in connection with G.R. Case No. 187 of 2023, presently pending before the Court of Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kharagpur.

Background in Brief:-

2. On 18.02.2023 victim of this case lodged a complaint before Inspector-in-charge Keshiary Police Station alleging inter alia that the petitioner no. 1 of this revision application had developed a relationship with the victim through a matrimonial site under the name and style of Shaadi.Com in the first part of the year 2022. At the instance of family members of both sides they got married through registry on 17.08.2022. Thereafter, both the family members decided to conduct their social marriage on 15.12.2022. From then on petitioner no. 1 of this revision application co-habited with victim against her will on several occasions and lastly on 23.10.2022. Subsequently, petitioner no. 1 in collusion with his other family members (petitioner no.2 to 9) refused to marry the victim.

3. On receipt of the written complaint, Keshiary Police Station Case No. 56 of 2023 dated 18.02.2023 under Section 376 (2)(n)/417/120-B/ 506 of IPC was registered and the case was investigated and subsequently charge sheet was submitted.

At the Bar:-

4. Mr. Debopam Roy, Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners vociferously contended that admittedly victim was legally married to the petitioner no. 1 herein through registration on 17.08.2022. Therefore, committing the offence of cheating punishable under Section 417 of the IPC does not arise.

5. Mr. Roy has vehemently submitted that the FIR involved in this revision application was lodged as a counter blast of a matrimonial suit filed by the petitioner no. 1 with the prayer for annulment of marriage lebelling few grievous allegation against the victim. Mr. Roy has tried to fortify his argument on the issue of veracity by referring to few conversations between the parties. Mr. Roy has tried to convince this Court that the events of co-habitation between the parties were nothing but consensual. Mr. Roy has further tried to make this Court understand that there is no allegation in the complaint regarding alleged co-habitation prior to the date of registry marriage and in terms of age of the victim/legally married wife, no question of rape within the meaning of Section 375 of the IPC arises. Before parting with, Mr. Roy has submitted there is no specific allegation against other family members (petitioner no. 2 to 9) of the petitioner no. 1.

6. To fortify his argument, Mr. Roy relied on a case of Phool Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2022) 2 Supreme Court Cases 74.

7. Mr. Anand Keshari, Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State has contended that plea of counter blast cannot be tested at the time of exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Keshari has further submitted that genuinity of the compliant cannot be taken into account on the basis of whastapp chats and the other materials relied on behalf of the petitioners.

8. Mr. Keshari by referring to the written complaint has submitted that in the written complaint victim specifically narrated the factum of co-habitation agains