Important Judgment on Ingredients and Arguments to Establish Offences under Section 493 IPC Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Wed, Feb 26, 2020, at ,05:29 PM Name of the case – Arun Singh & ors vs. State f U.P.., Crl. A. No. 250 of 2020 (Supreme Court) Date of Judgment – February 10, 2020 Judges: Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Krishna Murari Subject and sections involved – Section 482 CrPC Issue: Whether the power of the High Court under section 482 CrPC of the Court to quash the proceedings in non-compoundable offences was right? Whether allegation made in FIR constitute the commission of an offence under section 493 IPC? Fact of the Case: The respondent lodged FIR u/s 493 IPC r/w 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellant. The matter was investigated by the concerned Police Station and a charge sheet was filed against the appellants, which was challenged before the High Court by way of a petition under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court while rejecting Section 482 CrPC petition directed the accused-appellants to surrender before the Court concerned within 30 days from the date of order and in case they do so within the stipulated period and apply for bail the same was liable to be considered and decided in view of law laid down by full bench of High Court in case of Amrawati & another versus State of U.P.2004 (57) ALR 290 affirmed by this court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short ‘the CrPC) challenging the charge sheet filed against them. Ratio of the Case: The division bench of Supreme court reiterated to the view as observed in Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjba, (2014) 6 SCC 466, that even where there is a settlement between the offender and victim, the same cannot constitute a valid ground to quash the FIR or the charge sheet. Thus, the High Court cannot be said to be unjustified in refusing to quash the charge sheet on the ground of compromise between the parties. Ingredients and Arguments to Establish Offences under Section 493 IPC: Issue 2 493. 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. 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 co-habit 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, a woman should believe that she was lawfully married to the man and thus there should be cohabitation or sexual intercourse. 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. 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. In other words, to constitute an offence under Section 493 I.P.C., the allegations in the FIR must demonstrate that appellant had practised deception on the daughter of the complainant causing a false belief of the existence of lawful marriage and which led her to cohabit with him. The court further established that ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 493 I.P.C. are missing from the averments. The allegations do not even prima-facie, cull out any inducement of belief in the victim that she is lawfully married to the appellant no.1 and on account of this deceitful misstatement, the victim co-habited with the accused. Since the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 493 I.P.C. is missing from the allegations made in the F.I.R., an offence under the said Section can not be said to be made out against the appellants.