# Pragat Gupta @ Satyam v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1071
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-09
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 646 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pragat-gupta-satyam-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-51226
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
493 - Cohabitation caused by a man
deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful
marriage,
Section
496
-
Marriage
ceremony
fraudulently
gone
through
without lawful marriage, Section 506 -
criminal
intimidation
-
essential
ingredients of Section 493 : Deceitful
representation by the accused - False
belief of lawful marriage in the woman -
Cohabitation
or
sexual
intercourse
resulting from deception - allegations in
the
FIR
must
demonstrate
these
ingredients. (Para -12)
Complainant
alleged
-
Applicant-accused
promised to marry her - applied vermilion
(sindoor) to her head - raped her - did not fulfill
his marriage promise - Applicant-accused was
summoned to face trial. (Para - 1 to 4 ,23)

HELD: - Complainant's allegations do not
establish the essential ingredients of offenses
under Sections 493, 496, and 506 IPC.
Applicants' actions did not amount to deception
or fraudulent marriage. Criminal proceedings are
quashed due to lack of evidence and abuse of
the law. (Para -14 to 22 ,24)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Pragat Gupta @ Satyam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1071
trial court may consider those pleas and
grounds at the appropriate stage of trial
strictly in accordance with law. Notably, the
allegations against the opposite party no. 2
are very serious and if those allegations are
proved beyond all reasonable doubts, the
learned trial court may award appropriate
punishment
considering
the
amended
provisions of Juvenile Justice Act as well as
relevant sections of Indian Penal Code, if
the trial court finds it appropriate to do so.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1071
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 646 of 2024

Pragat Gupta @ Satyam ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Siddharth Sinha

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Shishir Pradhan

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
493 - Cohabitation caused by a man
deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful
marriage,
Section
496
-
Marriage
ceremony
fraudulently
gone
through
without lawful marriage, Section 506 -
criminal
intimidation
-
essential
ingredients of Section 493 : Deceitful
representation by the accused - False
belief of lawful marriage in the woman -
Cohabitation
or
sexual
intercourse
resulting from deception - allegations in
the
FIR
must
demonstrate
these
ingredients. (Para -12)
Complainant
alleged
-
Applicant-accused
promised to marry her - applied vermilion
(sindoor) to her head - raped her - did not fulfill
his marriage promise - Applicant-accused was
summoned to face trial. (Para - 1 to 4 ,23)

HELD: - Complainant's allegations do not
establish the essential ingredients of offenses
under Sections 493, 496, and 506 IPC.
Applicants' actions did not amount to deception
or fraudulent marriage. Criminal proceedings are
quashed due to lack of evidence and abuse of
the law. (Para -14 to 22 ,24)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ram Chandra Bhagat Vs St. of Jharkh.,
(2013) 1 SCC 562

2. Arun Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2020) 3 SCC 736

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Siddhartha Sinha, the
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Akhilesh Kumar Vyas, the learned A.G.A.
appearing on behalf of the State and Sri
Shishir Pradhan, the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2.

2. By means of the instant application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has
sought quashing of the impugned order
dated 17.07.2023, summoning the applicant
to face trial and the entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No.33 of 2019: Vinita
Chaudhari
Vs.
Pragat
Gupta,
under
Sections 493, 496 & 506 I.P.C.Police
Station Bachhrawan, District Raebareli
pending in the court of learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division)/FTC-III, Raebareli.

3. The opposite party no.2 has filed a
complaint dated 07.01.2019, under Sections
376, 506 I.P.C. stating that there was a
1072 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
friendship between the opposite party no.2
and the applicant. The applicant visited
Raebareli thrice to meet the complainant
and asked her to marry him. He went to the
house of the complainant and expressed his
desire to marry the complainant before her
mother also. He gave copies of his
educational certificates to the complainant's
mother and the complainant had given
photocopies of her educational certificates
to the applicant.

4. The applicant made a phone call to
the complainant at about 2.00 p.m. on
14.05.2018 and called her to make her meet
his parents. The complainant went to
Bachhrawan by bus from where the
applicant took her to a garage, put sindoor
(Vermilion) on her head and said that very
soon he will perform court marriage with
her. In spite of the complainant's objection
he forcibly raped her in garage. The
applicant thereafter kept on avoiding to
marry her on one pretext or the other and in
the month of July he met the complainant
at Raebareli and deleted whatsapp chat
records from her mobile phone. When the
complainant presurrized the applicant to
marry her then on 28.08.2018 he stated that
he would not continue any relation with
her.

5. It is stated in the complainant that
the complainant had earlier lodged an F.I.R.
No.635 of 2018, under Sections 376, 506
I.P.C. in Police Station Bachhrawan. Her
medico legal examination was conducted
on 03.10.2018 and thereafter the police
pressurized her to enter into a settlement
but she declined the same. Thereafter, her
statement
was
recorded
before
the
Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She
stated that the police was not carrying out
investigation in furtherance of the F.I.R.
properly and was threatening her to file a
final report in case she does not enter into a
settlement and therefore she was filing
complaint.

6. From the averments made in the
complaint, it appears that the complainant
was filed when the investigation in
furtherance of an F.I.R. lodged by the
complainant on same set of allegations was
still pending.

7. In her statement recorded under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. the complainant
supported the complaint allegations and she
stated that on 14.05.2018 the applicant had
forcibly put sindoor on her head, raped her
and promised to marry her but he did not
marry her. She further stated that she
knows the applicant for the past one and
half years. She had made him meet her
parents and the applicant had asked her
parent about marrying her. Both of them
used to talk to each other till 26.08.2018,
on which date he told telephonically that he
was severing his relations with the
complainant.

8. The statements of the complainant's
mother and uncle were recorded under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. on 27.07.2019 and they
reiterated the version of complaint. One
Medical Officer of Community Health
Centre, Bachhrawan was also examined as
a witness and she had stated that she had
medically examined the complainant on
03.10.2018 but as four and half months had
elapsed since after the alleged incident she
could not give any specific opinion
regarding commission of rape. A SubInspector was also examined by the
complainant who had proved the F.I.R.
lodged by the complainant.

9. The Station House Officer has
submitted a report to the learned Additional
2 All. Pragat Gupta @ Satyam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1073
Chief Judicial Magistrate stating that in the
investigation conducted in furtherance of
F.I.R. No.635 of 2018 filed by the
complainant under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C.
he had conducted the investigation and
from the whatsapp chat record and the call
detail records of the mobile phones of the
complainant and the applicant, merely this
much could be established that there was a
love affair between them. No evidence
could be collected regarding commission of
rape or criminal intimidation. As per the
call detail records, the complainant's
presence in the locality where the offence
was allegedly committed could not be
established on the date of the incident and
even after the alleged date of incident the
complainant continued to communicate
with the applicant, from which it appears
that there was a love affair between them.

10. On 11.10.2019, the complainant
gave an application to the learned Judicial
Magistrate requesting that the final report
submitted by the Investigating Officer in
furtherance of F.I.R. lodged by her and the
complaint be consolidated. On 17.07.2023
the learned trial court passed an order
summoning the applicant to face trial for the
offences under Sections 493, 496 and 506 I.P.C.

11. While assailing the validity of the
aforesaid order, Sri Siddharth Sinha, the learned
counsel for the applicant submits that from the
allegations levelled in the complaint or the
statement of the complainant and other
witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C.,
the ingredients of offences under Sections 493,
496 and 506 I.P.C. are not made out and
therefore the summoning order is bad and is
liable to be quashed.

12. Per contra, Sri Shishir Pradhan, the
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2complainant has submitted that the complainant
had stated in her statement recorded under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. that the applicant had put
sindoor on her head which is sufficient to give
rise to a belief in the mind of any Indian lady
that she has got married to the person putting
sindoor on her head. Therefore, the ingredients
of Sections 493, 496 and 506 I.P.C. are made
out. He has placed reliance on a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram
Chandra Bhagat Vs. State of Jharkhand :
(2013) 1 SCC 562, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that inducement by a
person deceitfully to a woman to change her
status from unmarried woman to a lawfully
married woman and on that inducement making
her cohabit with him in the belief that she is
lawfully married to him is what constitutes an
offence under Section 493 I.P.C.

13. I have considered the submissions
made by parties counsel and gone through the
material placed on record.

14. The applicant has been summoned to
face trial under Sections 493, 496, 506 I.P.C.
Section 493 I.P.C. reads as follows: -

"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.

15. So far as the law laid down in
Ram Chandra Bhagat (Supra) relied upon
by the learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 is concerned, in that case the
Court had found that the appellant-accused
1074 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
had had signed a form and had got the same
signed by the complainant also for getting
married. The aforesaid fact had made the
complainant believe that the appellantaccused had married her and, therefore, she
had started residing with him as his wife,
without the appellant having actually
married the complainant. The persons
related to the complainant and the accused
were also made to believe that the
complainant was the wife of the appellant,
though
rituals
necessary
for
Hindu
marriage had never been performed and
admittedly no marriage had taken place
between the complainant and the appellant
but only on the basis of the documents
signed by the complainant at the instance of
the appellant-accused, the complainant was
made to believe that she was a lawfully
married wife of the appellant-accused. The
complainant had started residing with the
accused as she believed that she had
lawfully married the appellant-accused and
this fact was also reflected in the voters'
list, which mentioned the name of the
complainant as the wife of the appellant. As
a result of the cohabitation, the complainant
had given birth to two children. The
appellant-accused had acknowledged the
fact that the said two children were his
children. Several ceremonies in relation to
the birth of the children had also been
performed by the appellant-accused. In the
aforesaid factual background, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that: -

"12. Thus, upon perusal of the
evidence, we find that there was sufficient
evidence to the effect that the appellantaccused has deceived the complainant,
which ultimately resulted into a belief in the
mind of the complainant that she was a
lawfully married wife of the appellantaccused,
though
she
was
not.
The
aforestated evidence which has been found
by all the courts below is sufficient to show
that the complainant was made to believe
by the deceitful act of the appellantaccused that she was lawfully married to
the appellant-accused. The complainant
had also cohabited with the appellant and
had sexual intercourse with the appellantaccused and thereby she had given birth to
two children also.

13. In the aforestated set of
circumstances,
when
there
is
ample
evidence to the effect that only on the
deceitful representation of the appellantaccused the complainant believed herself to
be a lawfully married wife of the appellantaccused and as she had cohabited with the
appellant-accused, there cannot be any
doubt with regard to commission of an
offence under the provisions of Section 493
IPC."

16. In the present case, although the
complainant stated that the applicant had
taken her to her garage and had forcibly put
sindoor on her head, she has not stated that
this act of the applicant had made her
believe that she had become wife of the
applicant, rather she categorically stated in
the same breath that the applicant did not
fulfill his promise of marrying her. There is
absolutely no averment that the applicant
and the complainant have at any point of
time cohabited as husband and wife or that
they have projected themselves as such to
their relatives or to the society. The facts of
the present case are in no way similar to the
facts of Ram Chandra Bhagat (Supra)
and, therefore, the principle of law laid
down in that case would not apply to the
present case.

17. In Arun Singh v. State of U.P.,
(2020) 3 SCC 736, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court referred to the judgment in the case
of Ram Chandra Bhagat (Supra) and
2 All. Pragat Gupta @ Satyam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1075
explained the essential ingredients to
constitute the offence under Section 493
I.P.C. as follows: -

"19. A plain reading of the
section goes to show that in order to
constitute an offence under this section, it
has to be demonstrated that a man has
deceitfully caused any woman, who is not
lawfully married to him, to believe that she
is lawfully married wife and thereby to
cohabit with him. In other words, the
accused must induce a woman, not lawfully
married to him, to believe that she is
married to him and as a result of such
misrepresentation, woman should believe
that she was lawfully married to the man
and thus there should be cohabitation or
sexual intercourse.
* * *

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.

22. Deceit can be said to be a
false statement of fact made by a person
knowingly and recklessly with the intent
that it shall be acted upon by another who
on believing the same after having acted
thereupon suffers an injury. It is an attempt to
deceive and includes such declaration and
statement that misleads others or causes him to
believe which otherwise is false and incorrect.

23. In other words, to constitute an
offence under Section 493 IPC, the allegations
in the FIR must demonstrate that the appellant
had practised deception on the daughter of the
complainant causing a false belief of existence
of lawful marriage and which led her to cohabit
with him."

18. As per the statement of the
complainant herself, there was a loving
relationship between her and the applicant. The
applicant had met her mother and talked about
marrying her. The applicant had called her to
Bacchrawan to make her meet his parents but
he took her to garage situated at some distance
from his house, forcibly put sindoor on her
head, raped her, promised to marry her and she
went back home but the applicant did not marry
her. The complaint nowhere stated that at any
point of time the applicant had made her believe
that she was lawfully married to him or that the
applicant had made her go through the
ceremony
of
being
married.
Therefore,
ingredients
essential
for
making
out
commission of offence under Section 493 I.P.C.
are missing in the present case.

19. The applicant has also been
summoned to face trial for offence under
Section 496 I.P.C., which provides as follows: -

"496.
Marriage
ceremony
fraudulently gone through without lawful
marriage.-

Whoever, dishonestly or with a
fraudulent intention, goes through the ceremony
of being married, knowing that he is not thereby
lawfully married, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also
be liable to fine."

20. The complainant does not allege that
he applicant had gone through the
ceremony of being married, rather she
has specifically stated that the applicant
did not marry her in spite of having
promised to do so. Therefore, the
ingredients of Section 496 I.P.C. are
also not made out from the case set up
by the complainant herself.

21. The next allegation is regarding
commission of offence under Section 506
IP.C., which reads as follows: -
1076 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

506. Punishment for criminal
intimidation.-

Whoever commits, the offence of
criminal intimidation shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both;If threat be to cause
death or grievous hurt, etc.- And if the
threat be to cause death or grievous hurt,
or to cause the destruction of any property
by fire, or to cause an offence punishable
with death or imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a
woman,
shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, or
with fine, or with both."

22. There is absolutely no averment
made by the complainant or any other
witness so as to even prima facie establish
that the applicant had threatened the
complainant that any injury to her person,
reputation or property, or to the person or
reputation of anyone in whom that person
is interested, with intent to cause alarm to
the complainant, or to do any act which she
is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do
any such act. Therefore, the commission of
offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is also not
made out against the applicant on the basis
of the averments made by the complainant
in and her witnesses.

23. From the foregoing discussion, it
appears that the learned trial court has
summoned the applicant to face the trial for
the offences under Sections 493, 496, 506
I.P.C without taking into consideration the
aforesaid aspects of the matter.

24. Resultantly, the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The
impugned
order
dated
17.07.2023,
summoning the applicant to face trial and
the entire proceedings of Complaint Case
No.33 of 2019: Vinita Chaudhari Vs. Pragat
Gupta, under Sections 493, 496 & 506
I.P.C. Police Station Bachhrawan, District
Raebareli pending in the court of learned
Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC-III,
Raebareli are hereby quashed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1076
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 662 of 2024

Ansad Badruddin ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sheeran Mohiuddin Alavi, Harsh Vardhan Kediya,
Ishan Baghel

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 231, 231(2) & 482 - The
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
- Sections 13, 16, 18 & 20 - Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 135 & 138 -
Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 3, 25 & 35 -
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sections
3, 4, 5(v), 11, 12 & 13-B, - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B & 121-A -
Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing the
impugned
trial
court
orders
allowing
examination-in-chief
without
timely
crossexamination as well as the entire criminal
proceedings - petitioner claimed that, the trial
court conducted examination-in-chief of several
prosecution witnesses (PW-3 to PW-7) without
allowing
timely
cross-examination
by
the
petitioner, thereby violating procedural fairness