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 cohabitation under a misconception.

JUDGMENT

R.K. Pattanaik, J. - Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is at the behest of petitioner for quashing of the criminal proceeding in T.R. No.56 of 2019 pending in the file of learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Nayagarh corresponding to Special G.R. Case No.112 of 2017 arising out of Khandapada P.S. Case No.227 of 2017 on the grounds inter alia that the same is untenable in law.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the informant lodged a written report at Khandapada P.S. alleging therein that after the death of her husband, she is living with daughters and maintaining her livelihood by having a herd of goats and in so far as the petitioner is concerned, who is a veterinary doctor, developed relationship with an assurance to keep her as his second wife. It is further alleged that thereafter the petitioner married another women and when it was protested by her, she was subjected to threat with dire consequences. The details of the other incidents which happened with the informant stand described in said report. As a result of lodging the FIR, Khandapada P.S. Case No.227 dated 22nd November, 2017 was registered under Sections 420, 493, 417, 406 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (PoA) Act. Finally on completion of investigation, a chargesheet under Section 493, 417 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v)(va)(v2) of SC and ST (PoA) Act was submitted whereupon the learned court below took cognizance of the said offences.

3. According to the petitioner, the allegations are false and the ingredients of the alleged offence are not satisfied, however, the learned court below without appreciating the materials on record passed the impugned order of cognizance 26th April 2019 under Annexure-3, which is liable to be interfered with. As per the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, he was the Block Veterinary doctor at Khandapada and that the informant, namely, opposite party No.2 had lodged complaint against him vis-à-vis goat loans released in favour of the beneficiaries and in fact, it was inquired into by the Chief District Veterinary Officer, Nayagarh and the same was found to be false and fabricated. As far as the promise to marry opposite party No.2 is concerned, the same has been denied by the petitioner with the contention that nothing specific has been alleged in the FIR and the relationship which she continued with him for about ten years by opposite party No.2 was while being aware of his marital status. With the above contention, the petitioner claimed that no prima facie case can be said to have been made out even by considering the allegations in the FIR and therefore, the criminal proceeding initiated at the instance of opposite party No.2 should be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Heard Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohapatra, learned ASC for the State.

5. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations in the FIR do not make out a case against the petitioner since the essential ingredient of the alleged offences are not fulfilled as it cannot be a case of cheating or cohabitation between the parties by inducing opposite party No.2 to make her believe that the petitioner is lawfully married to her and likewise, the offences under the SC and ST (PoA) Act are not attracted but then, the learned court below lost sight of the aforesaid aspects and without application of judicial mind took cognizance of the offences against the petitioner which cannot be sustained in law. In support of such contention, Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vrs. The State of Maharashtra and Others MANU/SC/1142/2019 which is with reference to the offences under Sections 376 & 417 IPC and SC and ST (PoA) Act.

6. Mr. Mohapatra, learned ASC, on the contrary, submits that the petitioner is alleged of cheating and having committed the other