A relationship between two married individuals cannot constitute deception under IPC Sections 420 and 493, as both parties were aware of their marital statuses.

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner/Accused, questioning the criminal proceedings against him for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 493 of the Indian Penal code.

2. The 2nd respondent, who is a Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP) by occupation, was running Meeta Clinic at Kolbai Sadasivpet. The petitioner was residing near the clinic of the 2nd respondent/complainant.

3. The petitioner informed 2^nd respondent that he was not married and did not have any bad habits, and he started moving closely with her. While the complainant was travelling from Nandikandi to Sadasivpet, the petitioner used to follow her and expressed his desire to marry her. On 05.08.2019, the petitioner took the 2^nd respondent to a temple, put vermilion on her forehead, and convinced 2^nd respondent that they both were married. They started having a physical relationship over a period of time. When the petitioner started avoiding her, the complainant enquired and came to know that the petitioner was already married and had children. Since then, the petitioner started avoiding her completely. Further, the petitioner took amounts of Rs.20,000/-, 30,000/-, and 70,000/- on different dates, stating that he was constructing a house where both of them could live. Since the petitioner suppressed the fact of his first marriage, married the complainant, and entered into a live-in relationship along with a physical relationship over a period of time, the complainant sought the intervention of police to initiate action against the petitioner.

4. The complaint was registered under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code for cheating and under Section 493 of IPC for cohabiting with the complainant by inducing a belief of lawful marriage.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the offence of cheating or cohabitation by inducing the belief of a lawful marriage does not arise, since the complainant was already married to someone else as on the date of entering into a relationship with the petitioner. Neither the ingredients of Section 420 nor Section 493 of IPC are made out.

6. Learned Counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in XXXX v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another , (2024) 3 SCR 309 = 2024 INSC 181 (Crl.A.No.3431 of 2023 dated 06.03.2024), wherein it was held as follows:

“ 8.From the contents of the complaint, on the basis of which FIR was got registered and the statement got recorded by the complainant, it is evident that there was no promise to marry initially when the relations between the parties started in the year 2017. In any case, even on the dates when the complainant alleges that the parties had physical relations, she was already married. She falsely claimed that divorce from her earlier marriage took place on 10.12.2018. However, the fact remains that decree of divorce was passed only on 13.01.2021. It is not a case where the complainant was of an immature age who could not foresee her welfare and take right decision. She was a grown up lady about ten years elder to the appellant. She was matured and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of the moral and immoral acts for which she consented during subsistence of her earlier marriage. In fact, it was a case of betraying her husband. It is the admitted case of the prosecutrix that even after the appellant shifted to Maharashtra for his job, he used to come and stay with the family and they were living as husband and wife. It was also the stand taken by the appellant that he had advanced loan of ₹1,00,000/- to the prosecutrix through banking channel which was not returned back.”

7. He also relied upon the Judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Pinki Pramanik v. State of West Bengal, [2014 SCC Online Cal 18832], wherein it was held as follows:

“On the above reasoning this Court finds merit in Shri Grover's submission that the two charges under