[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Manti Sahu vs Mahesh Ganjir on 22 April, 2026
1
SUNITA
GOSWAMI
Digitally signed
by SUNITA
GOSWAMI
Date: 2026.04.22
17:38:40 +0530
2026:CGHC:18407
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 276 of 2023
Reserved on 30/03/2026
Pronounced on 22/04/2026
Smt. Manti Sahu W/o Mahesh Ganjir, present Aged About 47 Years, R/o
Village And Post Belgaon, P.S. and Tehsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon
(C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
Mahesh Ganjir S/o Dharmuram Ganjir, present Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Ward No. 8, Sevetapara, Dongargarh, P.S. Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon
(C.G.)
---- Respondent
Appellant- Smt. Manti Sahu : In person
For Respondent : Shri Sudhir Verma, Advocate appears
along with Shri C.R. Sahu and
Shri Mohnesh Tiwari, Advocates and
Shri Mahesh Ganjir-Respondent
appeared in person.
Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
CAV Judgment
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Complainant- Smt. Manti Sahu
under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated
12.10.2022, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Complaint Case No.3028/2011, whereby, the
complaint filed by her was dismissed and, thereby, the respondent-
Mahesh Ganjir has been acquitted with regard to the offence
punishable under Sections 493 and 496 of IPC.
2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the Respondent has been
charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections
493 and 496 of IPC on the allegations levelled by the Complainant, that
her marriage with him was solemnized on 08.05.2008 at village
Sankaradahra of District Rajnandgaon and, an Ekrarnama with regard
to her marriage was executed on 21.01.2009, since then they are living
as husband and wife and during this period, they visited at various
places and the respondent has made physical relations with her.
Further of her allegation was that she incurred a sum of Rs.85,000/-
during her visit on several places and, when she refused to provide him
money on his demand, he refused to keep her as his wife and drove
her out from the house.
3. Although, it was alleged by the Complainant that her marriage with the
respondent was solemnized on 08.05.2008, but a bare perusal of her
notice (Ex.P-1), issued on 05.01.2009, would, however, show that
marriage of her was not stated to be solemnized as such on 08.05.2008
and, even in her Complaint (Ex.P-14) made on 15.06.2009, before the
Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, no reference as such was
made and, instead, it was stated therein that the respondent on the
pretext of marriage has made physical relations with her in the month of
May to September, 2008 on various places. In view of the contents
made therein, it, therefore, cannot be said that her marriage was
solemnized with him on 08.05.2008, as alleged and deposed by her.
4. It is to be seen further, as reflected from her another notice, dated
13.05.2009 (Ex.P-10), that her alleged marriage was made with the
consent of his first wife, namely, Maheshwari Ganjir. It, thus, appears
that she was fully aware that the respondent was already a married
man and, therefore, the alleged Ekrarnama (Ex.P-4), executed on
21.01.2009, was held to be invalid and was held to be not binding upon
them by the Second Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon vide its
judgment, dated 11.10.2021 passed in appeal, being Civil Appeal
No.13-A/2020, as the same was found to be hit by the provisions
prescribed under Section 5 read with Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955.
5. The aforesaid finding was affirmed further by this Court vide judgment
dated 12.08.2022 in Second Appeal No.326/2021, preferred by the
Complainant. In view of such circumstances, it cannot be said that the
respondent dishonestly or fraudulently performed the alleged marriage,
as alleged by the Complainant. It is, thus, evident that deceit of the
kind contemplated under Section 493 of IPC has not been fulfilled. The
said provision is relevant for the purpose, which reads as under :-
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.
6. From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it, thus, appears that the
essence of an offence under the aforesaid provision consists in the
practice of deception by a man on a woman, in consequence of which,
she is led to believe that she is lawfully married to him even though, in
fact, they are not lawfully married. The ingredients necessary to be
established for bringing home the offence under the said provision are
firstly, the accused practiced deception; secondly, such deceit was to
induce the woman (complainant) to believe that she was lawfully
married to him; and, thirdly, there was cohabitation or sexual
intercourse as a result of the deception.
7. At this juncture, it is to be seen the principles laid down by the Orissa
High Court in the matter of Raghunath Padhy v. The State, reported in
AIR 1957, Ori.198, wherein, while considering the essentials of Section
493, I.P.C. held inter alia, that to prove deception it must be
conclusively established that the accused either dishonestly or
fraudulently concealed certain facts, or made a false statement knowing
it to be false. In that case some sort of marriage ceremony took place
between the petitioner, a Brahmin aged 22 years (with his wife living)
and a Brahmin widow, the woman being made to wear new clothes and
put on new bangles and also vermillion mark on her forehead; there
being also an exchange of garlands between the two. It was held that
the element of deception was wanting in the case. The said Court
clarified that the petitioner's subsequent conduct in deserting her after
she became pregnant and in even repudiating the marriage, though an
important piece of evidence, will not suffice by itself to show that at the
time when he participated in the ceremonies he intended to deceive
her.
8. The essence of the said section is, therefore, the deception caused by
a man on a woman in consequence of which she is led to believe that
she is lawfully married to him while in fact they are not lawfully married.
In order to establish deception there must first be allegations that the
accused falsely induced her to believe that she is legally wedded to
him. Therefore, in a case where both the man and woman fully knew
that they are not husband and wife and no ceremony of marriage took
place between them, there is no question of one of them believing
otherwise.
9. It, thus, appears, as revealed from the contents made in the complaint
vis-a-vis, her statement, that neither there is any allegation within the
four corners of the complaint petition, nor is it stated by her or her
witnesses in their deposition that the respondent-accused had falsely
induced her to believe that she is legally wedded to him. Rather, it
appears from her testimony that she was aware that the respondent
was a married man having a living wife and child. Therefore, the
essential ingredient of deception caused by him on the complainant,
that she is led by him to believe that she is lawfully married to him is,
however, not found to be established and, instead, they are not found
to be lawfully married borne out from the allegations in the alleged
complaint made by her and/or, the evidence led by her.
10. In view of the aforesaid background, I am of the view that the
cognizance for the offence under Sections 493 and 496 of I.P.C. has
rightly been turned down by the trial Court. Consequently, the appeal
being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE
sunita
