Allowed

Lal Rajesh Nath Sahadeo v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC9 Aug 2024Cr.M.P./758/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to quash cognizance for cheating and deceitful cohabitation based on a promise-to-marry allegation lodged after 14 years. The court held cheating prima facie made out but cognizance was time-barred under Section 468 CrPC with no Section 473 extension, and no offence under Section 493 IPC was disclosed; cognizance order and entire proceeding quashed.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance order dated 08.03.2017 and entire proceedings in C.P. Case No. 366 of 2016 against petitioner quashed.

Lal Rajesh Nath Sahadeo Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 758 of 2017

¶2

Lal Rajesh Nath Sahadeo, son of late Baijnath Sahdeo, r/o Village Pandara, P.S. Kuru, District Lohardaga. ..... … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Ropani Devi, Daughter of Deonath Munda, r/o Village Pandara, PO Pandara, PS Kuru, District Lohardaga. ... …. Opp. Parties

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶7

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, APP For the OP No.2 : Mr. Vimlesh Kumar, Advocate -------- J U D G M E N T

¶8

CAV on 08th July 2024 Pronounced on 09 August 2024

¶9

The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed on behalf of Lal Rajesh Nath Sahadeo with the prayer to quash the order taking cognizance under sections 417 & 493 of IPC dated 08.03.2017 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Lohardaga in C.P. Case No. 366 of 2016 as well as the entire proceeding of the same C.P. Case number as against the petitioner pending in Court of learned A.C.J.M., Lohardaga.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no alleged offence is made out against the petitioner. The learned trial court while taking the cognizance is not taken into consideration the unexplained delay of 14 years in lodging the complaint. Even if the entire prosecution case is taken to be correct, no offence under sections 417 and 493 of IPC is made out. In view of the above contended to quash the cognizance order and entire proceeding of the case pending against the petitioner.

¶11

The learned counsel for the op no.2 and learned APP for the

¶12

State opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The copy of the complaint is made annexure of this petition wherein the allegations are made by the complainant that the complainant is the tribal woman. She came in contact of the accused Lal Rajesh Nath Sahadeo in the year 2000 at the bricklin where both were labour. By and by the intimacy between the two was enhanced and the accused took her to Vardhman to give her job in a bricklin, thereto he had allured her to marry and established physical relation with her. He continued to establish physical relation with the complainant. The complainant also became pregnant. The accused created pressure upon her to terminate the pregnancy. For the same, the complainant did not agree and in the year 2002, a baby boy was born. When the complainant asked the accused to marry with her; he addressing her as coal tribal refused to marry with her. He had also criminally intimidated her and is evading from the paternity of the child born out of physical relation between the two. The complainant has also come to know that the accused has also got married with one Basanti Devi and out of that wedlock is having two daughter.

¶13

On behalf of complainant, the copy of the cognizance order is also annexed whereby the learned trial court had taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under sections 417 and 493 of IPC. 6. Herein the certain statutory provisions of IPC becomes relevant which are reproduced as under:

¶14

“ Section 415- Cheating- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain

¶15

¶16

any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

¶17

Section 417- Punishment for cheating- Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

¶18

Section 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.”

¶19

So far as the offence of cheating is concerned, from the allegations made in the complaint itself the petitioner/accused by playing deception upon the complainant took her to Vardhman for job at a bricklin thereto he also allured her to marry and established physical relation with her. There is deception since inception on the part of the petitioner which was exercised upon the complainant whereby having deceived the complainant he made her to establish physical relation with him and on this very allurement on the part of petitioner given to the complainant he established physical relation with the complainant and whereby the

¶20

¶21

complainant became pregnant and a baby boy was also born in the year 2002 and ultimately the petitioner refused to marry with her and also refused the paternity of the child causing harm in reputation of the complainant. In view of the cognizance order dated 08.03.2017 the complainant and two inquiry witnesses have also supported the allegations made in the complaint. As such the offence under section 415 of IPC which is punishable under section 417 of IPC is prima facie made out against the petitioner .

¶22

7.1 In the complaint itself occurrence is shown in between 2000 to 2002 and this complaint was lodged by the complainant on 30.11.2016 after 14 years from the date of commission of offence. The offence of cheating which is defined under section 415 of IPC the same is punishable under section 417 of IPC, for which the punishment is provided imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.

¶23

7.2 Since the offence under section 417 of IPC being punishable with one year imprisonment; therefore, section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides bar to take cognizance after lapse of period of limitation also comes into play, wherein limitation is shown one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year .

¶24

7.3 Herein it would be relevant to give the provision of sections 468 & 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which are reproduced hereinbelow:

¶25

“ 468 . Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.—

¶26

¶27

(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.

¶28

(2) The period of limitation shall be—

¶29

(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;

¶30

(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;

¶31

(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

¶32

(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.

¶33

473 . Extension of period of limitation in certain cases.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice.”

¶34

7.4 As such the very cognizance order dated 08.03.2017 is hit by the provisions of section 468 of Cr.PC being time barred. Neither the application under section 473 of Cr.PC is given by complainant for extension of limitation to take cognizance on complaint; nor the court taking cognizance has taken into consideration the same.

¶35

¶36

So far as the offence under section 493 of IPC is concerned in the complaint itself there is no allegation that the petitioner by exercising deception upon the complainant has caused her to believe that he was lawfully married to her and thereafter had co-habited with her. In the complaint itself the allegations are that he had allured the complainant to marry with her and after having allured her on the pretext of marriage he continued to establish physical relation with the complainant and subsequently he got married with another lady. As such no offence under section 493 of IPC is made out against the petitioner .

¶37

Consequently the entire proceeding pending against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law and same is liable to be quashed by exercising power under section 482 of Cr.PC. Accordingly, this criminal petition deserves to be allowed.

¶38

This criminal petition is, hereby, allowed. The cognizance order dated 08.03.2017 and the entire proceeding are hereby quashed.

¶39

Let the copy of the judgment be communicated to the concerned court for compliance.

¶40

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶41

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated: 09/ 08/2024 RKM AFR

¶42

Lal Rajesh Nath Sahadeo v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Rajesh Nath Sahadeo v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramlal Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vicky Singh Gill Alias Vicky Singh Alias Kundi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Kumar Alias Dinesh Kumar Mahto Alias Annu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raghunath Deogam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Kumar Mahato Alias Ajay Kr Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand