IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUBHASH CHAND, J.
Lal Rajesh Nath Sahadeo, S/o. Late Baijnath Sahdeo - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Opposite Parties
Cr. M.P. No. 758 of 2017
Decided On : 09-08-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 415, 417, and 493 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 468 and 473 - Quashing of cognizance order - Allegations of cheating and cohabitation - Delay of 14 years in lodging the complaint rendered the cognizance order time-barred under Section 468 - No prima facie case established for offences under Sections 417 and 493 IPC - Proceedings quashed as abuse of process of law. (Paras 7.4, 8, 9, and 10)
(B) Limitation - The court emphasized the necessity of timely lodging of complaints, highlighting that the delay was not properly explained, thus barring cognizance. (Paras 7.1 and 7.2)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of cheating a tribal woman by inducing her to believe in a false marriage and establishing a physical relationship, resulting in a child. The complaint was lodged 14 years after the alleged offences.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the complaint barred cognizance under Section 468 of the Cr.PC, and no offence under Section 493 IPC was made out.
Issues: The main issues were the delay in lodging the complaint and whether the allegations constituted offences under Sections 417 and 493 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the delay in filing the complaint was not justified, and the allegations did not establish the offences charged.
Result: The cognizance order and entire proceedings were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Chand, J.
The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed on behalf of Lal Rajesh Nath Sahadeo with the prayer to quash the order taking cognizance under sections 417 & 493 of IPC dated 08.03.2017 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Lohardaga in C.P. Case No. 366 of 2016 as well as the entire proceeding of the same C.P. Case number as against the petitioner pending in Court of learned A.C.J.M., Lohardaga.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no alleged offence is made out against the petitioner. The learned trial court while taking the cognizance is not taken into consideration the unexplained delay of 14 years in lodging the complaint. Even if the entire prosecution case is taken to be correct, no offence under sections 417 and 493 of IPC is made out. In view of the above contended to quash the cognizance order and entire proceeding of the case pending against the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the op no.2 and learned APP for the State opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The copy of the complaint is made annexure of this petition wherein the allegations are made by the complainant that the complainant is the tribal woman. She came in contact of the accused Lal Rajesh Nath Sahadeo in the year 2000 at the bricklin where both were labour. By and by the intimacy between the two was enhanced and the accused took her to Vardhman to give her job in a bricklin, thereto he had allured her to marry and established physical relation with her. He continued to establish physical relation with the complainant. The complainant also became pregnant. The accused created pressure upon her to terminate the pregnancy. For the same, the complainant did not agree and in the year 2002, a baby boy was born. When the complainant asked the accused to marry with her; he addressing her as coal tribal refused to marry with her. He had also criminally intimidated her and is evading from the paternity of the child born out of physical relation between the two. The complainant has also come to know that the accused has also got married with one Basanti Devi and out of that wedlock is having two daughter.
5. On behalf of complainant, the copy of the cognizance order is also annexed whereby the learned trial court had taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under sections 417 and 493 of IPC.
6. Herein the certain statutory provisions of IPC becomes relevant which are reproduced as under:
“Section 415- Cheating- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.
Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
Section 417- Punishment for cheating- Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Section 493 Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage.— Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
7. So far as the offence of cheating is concerned, from the allegations made in the complaint itself the petitioner/accused by playing deception upon the complainant took her to Vardhman for job at a bricklin thereto he also allured her to marry and established physical relation with her. There is deception since
AI
Delay in lodging a complaint can bar cognizance of offences under IPC if not properly explained, and allegations must meet statutory criteria for the offences charged.
A breach of promise to marry cannot be considered a false promise unless the maker had no intention of upholding it. Section 493 IPC requires the victim to have a belief of lawful marriage and cohabi....
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 pre....
The court quashed proceedings under Sections 493 and 312 IPC due to insufficient allegations but allowed investigations under Sections 419, 420, and 504 IPC to proceed.
Absence of intent to cheat at the inception negates the elements of the offence under Section 420 IPC, resulting in the quashing of the cognizance order.
The court ruled that allegations of deception and cheating under IPC Sections 493 and 417 were not substantiated, leading to the quashment of criminal proceedings.
The judgment establishes the distinction between rape and consensual acts, emphasizing the active and reasoned deliberation required for consent under IPC Section 375, and the consequences of a decei....
A married woman cannot claim rape or cheating based on a false promise of marriage when she consents to a relationship, understanding her marital status.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.