7. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, when the case in hand is addressed, it appears to this
Court that admittedly in this case, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner giving
a promise of marriage had sexual intercourse with the victim and made her enceinte. There was
no allegation against the petitioner of having a sexual intercourse with the victim by deceit
of a lawful marriage. No ceremony of marriage whatsoever was performed with the victim which h
ad to give her the impression of marriage. Prima-facie, therefore, the ingredients of the char
ge under Section 493 of IPC, are not there. Hence, when prima-facie, the ingredients of the af
oresaid offence are not available in the record against the petitioner, the cognizance of the
said offence is bad in the eye of law.
8. Accordingly, this Court quashes the cognizance of the offence under Section 493 of IPC
taken by the learned J.M.F.C., Bissamcuttack against the petitioner vide the impugned order.
So far as the cognizance of other offences, i.e., offences under Sections 506, 417 and 376 of
IPC is concerned, the petitioner shall be proceeded with the same in the aforesaid case in acc
ordance with law.
