IMPORTANT POINT
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.

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in FIR.No.245 of 2024 dated 07.05.2024 before the Gudimalkapur Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 493, 419, 420, 312 and 504 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against her husband who is petitioner herein, stating that she had acquaintance with her husband since childhood as their parents were family friends. It is stated that her husband started to propose her since the time when he was in 7th standard and always said that he would marry her with or without her father’s consent. It is alleged that the petitioner used to cohabit with respondent No.2 since fifteen years and got her pregnant twice and made her believe that he would marry her but he did not do so. It is further alleged that the petitioner attempted to rape respondent No.2 and when she agitated against him, he still made her believe that he would marry her once he is settled. Further, in August 2023 the petitioner asked her to come to India saying that he will move to USA along with her but then the respondent No.2 found that he was cheating on her with another girl by name Sakshi and when respondent No.2 called the said Sakshi, she revealed that petitioner was in relation with her and that she is conceived which would reveal that petitioner cheated her as well.

3. It is further alleged that when the respondent No.2 revealed the said state of affairs to the parents of petitioner, they asked her to take things casual and move on, due to which, the respondent No.2 was compelled to attempt suicide. However, the petitioner convinced her that he would marry her and also appeared before the Office of S.R.O. in Attapur and applied for register marriage but after the incubation period, the petitioner denied to marry her and the same caused lot of hardship, suffering and prejudice to the respondent No.2 and her family. Being aggrieved by the said mental and physical harassment, the respondent No.2 lodged complaint praying to take action against the petitioner.

4. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police registered an FIR against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 493, 419, 420, 312 and 504 of IPC. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.

5. Heard Sri Mohd. Nazeeruddin Khan, learned counsel representing Sri S.Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 – State, and Sri Shashibhushan, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that even if the allegations leveled against the petitioner are taken in its entirety, the same can be summed up as baseless and vague. He contended that Section 493 of IPC penalizes a man who deceitfully convinces a woman that they are lawfully married but the said man is not lawful husband of a woman and out of such deceit, he induces a woman to cohabit with him or have sexual intercourse with him and that there are no such instances in the present case whereunder the petitioner attempted to convince the respondent No.2 that they were legally married. In support of the said contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Bhagat Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 1 SCC 562 wherein it was stated that “if a woman is induced to change her status from that of an unmarried to that of a married woman with all the duties and obligations pertaining to the changed relationship and that result is accomplished by deceit, such woman within the law can be said to have been deceived and the offence under Section 493 IPC is brought home”.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner incessantly contended that Sections 419, 420 and 504 of IPC are not applicable in the case of peti