GOURANGA PRADHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482. Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 21.5.1992 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Bhanjanagar in G.R. Case No. 374 of 1991 taking cognizance of commission of offence under Section 493 of the Penal Code as well as for quashing the proceeding in the said G.R. Case.

(2.) FROM the record, it appears that one Satrughana Pradhan, who is the uncle of the victim lady lodged an F.l.R. in Buguda P.S. alleging therein that the victim girl having lost her parents was brought up by her uncle Udayanath Nayak and was staying in his house. It is further alleged that the petitioner has landed properties near about the lands of said Udayanath Nayak and in that connection he used to come to the house of Udayanath Nayak and in the process developed the affairs with the victim. The said affair resulted in physical relationship and the victim became pregnant. When a proposal was given to the petitioner for getting married to the victim, the said proposal was turned down resulting in lodging of the F.l.R. Initially, it appears that the case was registered for commission of offences under Sections 420 and 493 of the Penal Code and after completion of investigation, charge -sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Section 493 of the Penal Code.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner was in visiting term to the house of Udayanath Nayak where the victim was staying and had developed physical relationship with her. There is nothing in the F.I.R. that such physical relationship was not with the consent of the victim who is undisputedly a major girl. There is also no dispute that neither there was any promise for marriage nor the victim was kept under the impression that she was the married wife of the petitioner. Rather on plain reading of the F.I.R. it appears that only after the victim was pregnant, a proposal was given to the petitioner for the purpose of marriage which was turned down. On perusal of Section 493 of the Penal Code, it appears that a deceit causing a false belief in the woman in the existence of a lawful marriage and having sexual intercourse such a woman by creating such a belief can only attract the provision. In the present case the deceit part of the ingredients is absent. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Moideenkutty Haji v. Kunhikoya reported in A.I.R. 1987 Kerala 184. Relevant paragraph of the said decision is quoted below :