1. By filing this petition under section 482, Cr.PC, read with article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have put to challenge the registration of Barpeta P.S. Case No.327/09, under sections 417/493/312/420/34 of the IPC, against the petitioners, as accused, the ground of challenge being that the First Information Report ('FIR') does not disclose commission of offences under the penal provisions of section 493 or section 420, IPC and, hence, in such circumstances, the registration of the case aforementioned, under section 493 and section 420, IPC, was illegal and as far as the offences under sections 417 and 312, IPC are concerned, the same, being non-cognizable, cannot be investigated by police in exercise of its powers under section 156(1), Cr.PC.

2. I have heard Mr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused petitioners, and Mr. B.S. Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing on behalf of the opposite party Nos.1 and 3. I have heard also Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2, (i.e., the complainant).

3. In the case at hand, opposite party No.2 herein had filed a complaint, on 17.2.2009, in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta. This complaint was sent to the police for its registration as First Information Report and also for investigation. Treating the complaint as FIR, Barpeta Police Station Case No.327/09, under sections 417/493/312/420/34 of the IPC, was, as indicated above, registered. It is the registration of the case under the penal provisions of section 493 and section 420, IPC, which stood challenged, in this criminal revision, by the accused petitioners on the ground that the contents of the FIR, even if assumed to be true, do not disclose commission of offences under section 493 and/or section 420, IPC and, consequently, the police cannot investigate the remaining offences, namely, offences allegedly committed under sections 417 and 312 inasmuch as both these penal provisions are non-cognizable and cannot be investigated by police without appropriate authority having been received from the Magistrate concerned.

4. While considering the above aspects of the submissions, made on behalf of the petitioners, it needs to be noted that according to the informant, the accused-petitioner No. 1 had been carrying on love affair with the informant and, by promising to marry her, the accused-petitioner No.1 had induced the informant to let her have sexual intercourse with the accused-petitioner No. 1 and, as a result of such sexual intercourse, she became pregnant, but the accused-petitioner No.1 got her pregnancy terminated by taking her to the residence of an unknown person. It is also alleged, in the complaint, that the accused-petitioner No.1 has, thus, deceived the complainant by subsequently refusing to marry her.

5. There is, admittedly, no allegations, in the FIR, that the informant was under the impression that the petitioner No.1 was her lawfully married husband. In fact, the contents of the FIR show that the informant, despite being fully aware of the fact that she was not the wife of accused-petitioner No. 1, had allowed the accused-petitioner No. 1 to have sexual intercourse with her under the belief that he would marry her. In such circumstances, penal provisions of section 493, IPC were not attracted inasmuch as section 493 is attracted only, when a man, by deceit, causes a woman, who is not lawfully married to him, to believe that she is lawfully married to him and, acting upon such belief, she cohabits or have sexual intercourse with him. Unless, therefore, a woman is deceived by a man to believe that she is lawfully married to him and she, under such belief, cohabits or have sexual intercourse with such a man, no offence, under section 493, IPC, can be said to have been committed. In the case at hand, a bare reading of the contents of the complaint, which has been registered as the FIR, shows that the complainant (informant) had k

Click Here to Read the rest of this document