IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44630 of 2008 Md. Shahnawaz, son of Md. Idris, village Purwari Jhirva, PS Simraha, District Araria – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Bijali Khatoon, daughter of Md. Jamal @ Jalal, village Purwari Jhirva, PS Simaraha, District Araria – Opp. Parties. 4 22.9.2011 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. representing the State and Mr. G.P. Gupta for opposite party no.2. This application has been filed for quashing the First Information Report of Forbesganj (Simraha) PS Case No. 285/2008 instituted for the offences alleged to have been committed under sections 376, 420 and 493 of the Penal Code. The allegation in the First Information Report is that the informant entered into relationship with the petitioner on the assurance that he would marry her. After some time she gave birth to a daughter, namely, Jhansi Ki Rani. It is alleged that in the interregnum period of five years despite the fact that the informant tried to pursuade the petitioner to marry her, the petitioner refused to do so. Thereafter, she filed the case under sections 376, 420 and 493 of the Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant was earlier married to one Md. Sajjad. Later, she married one Md. Shamshad against who she instituted a case under section 498A of the Penal Code. During the pendency of the said Complaint Case No. 596/2006 against Md. Shamshad, the parties entered into a compromise. The compromise was not accepted by the court. After 2 evidence was led, the court came to a conclusion that opposite party no.2 has not been able to support her case and as such acquitted Md. Shamshad and others against whom the lady had filed a case under section 498A of the Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by judgment and order, dated 23.4.2007 (Annexure 3). These facts have not been disputed by the opposite party. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case has been filed after a delay, that no case is made out under section 376 of the Penal Code, and that by virtue of delay in filing the case, the case of there being a relationship between the parties and the subsequent events become unbelievable. Counsel for the opposite party no.2, on the other hand, vehemently argued that even though this court may come to the conclusion that a case is not made out under section 376 of the Penal Code, but certainly a case should be made out under sections 420 and 493 of the Penal Code, as the petitioner had enticed her to enter into illegal relationship on the promise that he will marry her. On perusal of the First Information Report as well as on consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, this court comes to the conclusion that opposite party no.2 was not a young girl, who had no experience of life, so that she could have been persuaded to enter into any sort of relationship with a man. It is difficult for this court to believe that the lady would file this case after five years of the relationship to claim that the petitioner had made false promises to her. The offence of cheating could perhaps be believed if opposite party no.2, was a young girl, or that her 3 circumstances were such that she was pressurized to enter into sexual relationship on the alleged promise of marriage. The opposite party could have taken appropriate steps claiming maintenance, if she was able to prove that she was living with the petitioner. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that a case is made out under section 420 of the Penal Code. The delay in approaching the court or in lodging the First Information Report is not explained by the informant-opposite party no.2 which by itself is a factor which creates doubt regarding the occurrence. No case is made out under section 376 of the Penal Code as even according to the case of the opposite party, there was no use of force in the whole relationship. Section 493 of the Penal Code does not apply in this case. This section envisages that man who by deceit causes any person not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him, commits an offence punishable under section 493 of the Penal Code. The facts of the case do not disclose an offence under section 493 of the Penal Code which would be apparent from the facts stated aforesaid. It is also important to refer to the complaint petition which she filed against Shamshad, the earlier husband (Annexure 2). In this context Bijli Khatoon, the opposite party in this case had also filed a case under section 498A of the Penal Code being Complaint Case No. 596/2006 against her ex-husband Shamshad and his family members. At paragraph 5 of the complaint petition she has stated that 4 once she gave birth to a baby girl Jhansi Ki Rani, her husband and other family members began to ill treat her with vengeance. In the present first information report she claims that while living with the petitioner she gave birth to a baby girl named Jhansi Ki Rani. It, thus, appears that the informant is basing her claim on lies. The judgment of the complaint case is at annexure 3, which indicates that the opposite party had entered in some sort of compromise, as she has stated that she had filed the case as she was misled by certain persons. This court thus concludes that no offence is made out under sections 376 and 493 of the Penal Code, for the reasons mentioned above and also concludes that the first information report apparently contains false allegations as discussed above. I find that this is a fit case to quash the First Information Report of Forbesganj (Simraha) PS Case No. 285/2008. This application is thus allowed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)