Telangana High Court
Begari Arun Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 11 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9479 OF 2021
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 2nd 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 2nd respondent to a temple, put vermilion on her forehead,
and convinced 2nd 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 1
(Crl.A.No.3431 of 2023 dated 06.03.2024), wherein it was held
as follows:
(2024) 3 SCR 309 = 2024 INSC 181
" 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 2, wherein it
was held as follows:
"On the above reasoning this Court finds merit in Shri Grover's
submission that the two charges under Section 493 IPC and
under Section 376 IPC are incongruous to each other, mutually
2014 SCC Online Cal 18832
exclusive and therefore cannot be sustained in the same
complaint. In other words, the petitioner could either make a
false promise of marriage or, alternatively, could induce the
belief that the complainant was in lawful marriage with her but
not both at the same time. Therefore, on the basis of the above
reasoning this Court finds the order impugned passed by the Ld.
Trial Court directing trial under Section 493 IPC to be
unsustainable."
8. Learned Counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand 3,
wherein it was held as follows:
"As we are concerned with the provisions of Section 493 IPC, it
would be just and proper to look at the said section before we
deal with the subject:
"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."
Upon perusal of Section 493 IPC, to establish that a person has
committed an offence under the said section, it must be
established that a person had deceitfully induced a belief to a
woman, who is not lawfully married to him, that she is a lawfully
married wife of that person and thereupon she should cohabit or
should have had sexual intercourse with that person. Looking at
the aforestated section, it is clear that the accused must induce a
woman, who is not lawfully married to him, to believe that he is
(2013) 1 SCC 562
married to her and as a result of the aforestated representation,
the woman should believe that she was lawfully married to him
and there should be cohabitation or sexual intercourse as a result
of the deception."
9. Learned Counsel also relied upon the Judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Arun Singh and others v. State of
U.P. through its Secretary and another 4, wherein it was held
that:
"21. The essence of an offence under Section 493 IPC is,
therefore, practice of deception by a man on a woman as a
consequence of which the woman is led to believe that she is
lawfully married to him although she is not and then make her
cohabit with him."
10. The Honourable Supreme Court, in A.M.Mohan v. The State
rep. by SHO and others 5, held as follows:
"18. Section 420 of the Penal Code reads thus:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly
induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any
person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of
a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed,
and which is capable of being converted into a valuable
security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years,
and shall also be liable to fine."
(2020) 3 SCC 736
2024 SCC OnLine SC 339
19. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section
420 are as follows:
19.1. A person must commit the offence of cheating under
Section 415; and
19.2. The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything
signed or sealed and capable of being converted into
valuable security.
20. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to
constitute an offence under Section 420."
11. The complainant was running a clinic and was an RMP. Even
according to her, the petitioner was already married before she got
acquainted with him. An offence under Section 493 of IPC would be
made out if the petitioner had practiced deception and, as a
consequence of such deception, the complainant believed that she
was lawfully married to him and cohabited with him. The
complainant was already married and not divorced. Therefore, the
question of her believing that she was lawfully married to the
petitioner does not arise in the present circumstances. She is a
working woman and mature enough to understand the
consequences of entering into a physical relationship with another
person. While her marriage was subsisting, she maintained a
physical relationship with the petitioner over a period of time. The
said relationship, from the facts narrated by her, appears to be
consensual and not on account of any inducement or false promise
by the petitioner.
12. Even accepting the version of the complainant that the
petitioner did not inform her about his marriage earlier, it would not
amount to practicing deception in the present facts of the case. Both
the petitioner and the complainant were already married, and on
their own, entered into a physical relationship. After considerable
time, since the relationship soured, the complaint appears to have
been filed.
13. Considering the observations of the Honourable Supreme
Court in the Judgments cited above, this Court finds that none of
the ingredients of either Section 420 or section 493 of IPC are made
out.
14. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings
against the petitioner in CC.No.1088 of 2019 on the file of Judicial
Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), are quashed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 11.04.2025
tk
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9479 OF 2019
Dt. 11.04.2025
tk
