IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that voluntary expenditures made in the context of a relationship, despite misrepresentations, do not constitute cheating unless there is clear evidence of intent to deceive and defraud.

ORDER :

1. The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and F.I.R. No. 108/2021 registered at P.S. Khandafalsa, District Jodhpur may kindly be quashed and set-aside.”

2. Succinctly stated, facts of the present case are that First Information Report No. 108/2021 (the impugned FIR) was registered against the petitioners at the instance of respondent no. 2 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 384, 388, 389 and 120-B of the IPC. The impugned FIR discloses that respondent No. 2 initiated contact with the petitioner No. 1 through her online marriage profile of an account at jeevansathi.com in the year 2019, wherein the status of the petitioner No. 1 was shown to be a ‘Divorcee’. Petitioner No. 1, on 4.12.2019 came to Jodhpur with her brother Saorabh Vyas (petitioner No. 2), and met with family members of the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was finalized. On confirmation of the marriage between them and upon being asked by petitioner No. 1, the respondent No. 2 purchased expensive jewellery and clothes for the petitioner No. 1 & 2.

3. The FIR further discloses that on 31.12.2019, respondent No. 2 visited Sagar, Madhya Pradesh to meet with the family members of the petitioner No. 1. He was told by the parents of the petitioner No. 1 that she is already married, however her divorce case is still pending before the competent court in which she would get the decree of divorce in the year 2020. Thereupon, they performed the engagement ceremony of respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 1.

4. In the impugned FIR it has further alleged that on 16.01.2020, petitioner No. 1 came to Jodhpur to attend the marriage functions of the younger brother (Lokesh) of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 also attended the marriage functions of the younger sister (Shivani) of the petitioner No. 1 on 30.01.2020. The respondent No. 2 on both the occasions incurred a huge expenditure for the purchase of jewellery and other gift articles including clothes etc., for the petitioner No. 1 and her family members.

5. The respondent No. 2, as per the impugned FIR, in the month of February, 2020 being influenced by the sweet talks of the petitioner No. 1, purchased a shop for running a beauty parlor for her and also deposited an advance sum, thereafter he was pressurized to accompany her to go to Delhi in order to purchase expensive articles and furniture for being installed in the said beauty parlor.

6. The case of the respondent No. 2 is that the petitioners No. 1 to 5 hatched a criminal conspiracy with the intention of cheating him and he was visited by financial frauds on several occasions, on a false promise of marriage with the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 was not a divorcee, however her account on jeevansathi.com disclosed her status as a ‘divorcee’. The respondent No. 2 had accepted the proposal of marriage with the petitioner No. 1 only on seeing her status on jeevansathi.com.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR would indicate that the respondent No. 2 came in contact with the petitioner No. 1 in the year 2019. He thereafter met with the petitioner No. 1 and her family members on several occasions at different places. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent No. 2 maintained his contact/relationship with the petitioner No. 1 despite having information that she is not a divorcee and her case for divorce with her husband is pending before the competent court. Thus, the question of her denying marriage with the respondent No. 2 before getting a decree of divorce does not arise in the matter as it is not possible to marry another man during the subsistence of a marriage. Learned counsel further submitted that the amount spent by the respondent No. 2 on different occasions on being