The main legal point established in the judgment is that the offense punishable under Section 420 of the IPC requires evidence of deceit leading to disadvantage, such as inducing a person to deliver property or intentionally inducing the person to do something causing harm. In this case, the court found that such evidence was lacking, and therefore, the offense was not made out against the accused-petitioner.

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J.

1. The present petition is maintained by the petitioner-accused (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the accused’) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), for setting aside the impugned order dated, 25.10.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. III, Una, H.P., in Case No. 19/2016, RBT No. 228- 1/2016, titled as Abhishek Kaushal versus Rajni Devi Dhiman.

2. The key facts, giving rise to the present petition, are that Shri Abhishek Kaushal (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the complainant’) has filed a complaint against the accused, wherein he alleged that he is the resident of Industrial Area, Tehsil Mehatpur, District Una, (H.P.) and the accused has been living with him for the last 20 years with her free and sweet consent. The complainant further alleged that both the parties were living in social circle of relatives, friends and other social dignities, as husband and wife. The other people also had been accepting and recognizing them as husband and wife. As per the complainant, they have also celebrated ritual and ceremonies of ‘Granth Sahib’ for conducting their marriage. There are some instances of ‘WhatsApp’ massages, leading to presumption and assumption that the parties are husband and wife. The complainant further alleged that due to undue influence and coercion from the strangers and relatives, the accused has threatened the complainant to commit suicide, if the marriage tie is not broken by him. She was requested not to take such a drastic step to end her precious life and harass and lower the complainant in the estimation of relatives, parents, friends and dignitaries. She was further requested to wait for the adjudication of controversy between the parties, with respect to the marriage, pending in the Civil Court, but she began to shower filthy language and dirty and unsocial strictures on the bond and mind of the complainant to compel him to commit suicide alongwith her. According to the complainant, the accused further threatened him that in case he does not commit suicide alongwith her, she would leave a suicide note to entangle him in a murder case. She further tried to give back the dowry articles and ornaments to the complainant, if he agreed to break the marriage tie. She was requested to solve the controversy by Khangi assembly of the both the sides, but in vain. According to the complainant, the threatening words of the accused to commit suicide along with other threats, leading to break in the marriage ties, are looming large 24 hours on his mind, due to which, he has lost his sleep and may give him jolts of heart attack. He prayed that the accused be tried for the commission of offences under Sections 420, 499, 500 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC). Thus, the complainant filed the complaint before the learned Trial Court, whereby he examined four witnesses in all including himself. He examined CW-1 Smt. Kusum Kaushal, CW-2, Smt. Anita Sharma, CW-3, Shri Rohit Sharma and also appeared himself in the witness box as CW-4. The witnesses in their testimonies, supported the contents of the complaint. In view of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court held that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 499, 500 & 506 of the IPC, but summoned the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 25.10.2016, the accused has preferred this petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused has argued that the learned Court below, without appreciating the fact that no case was made out against the accused, even after going through the pleadings of the parties, has issued summons against the petitioner-accused under Section 420 of the IPC. He has further argued that as no case is made out, even after going through