IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) Nos.903 & 904 of 2010 in Cr. Appeal No. 201 of 2010. Decided on: August 26, 2010. _______________________________________________________ Jamna Devi. ……..Appellant. Versus Tej Singh. …..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : None. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): Cr.M.P.(M) No.903 of 2010. There is delay of 10 days in filing the instant appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. For the reasons mentioned in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the appellant, it constitutes the sufficient cause for condoning the delay, as such the application Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of. Cr.M.P.(M) No.904 of 2010. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. In the year 2006, the complainant was a student of 10th class, whereas the respondent was studying in the College. They developed the intimacy. Respondent instigated the complainant to have a sexual intercourse, to which she objected for pre-marital relations, thus refused to oblige the respondent, unless they get married. 4. After few months, the complainant was allegedly taken by the respondent to a temple nearby and garlanded her before an idol of goddess. The complainant was made to believe that he had solemnized the marriage in presence of the Goddess, thus both of them had become husband and wife and consummated marriage. 5. In fact, the aforesaid form of marriage is neither legally recognized, nor there is any plea that such type of marriages are prevalent in any custom or custom applicable to the parties. Even no evidence was adduced that after the alleged marriage, both of them - 3 - lived together. Rather respondent has married another girl. There is also no document of marriage or its registration in the temple between the complainant and the respondent. They did not go through the ceremonies of marriage at all, which constitute a valid marriage. 6. The complainant had adduced the statements of CW-2 Narain Singh, CW-3 Harish Kumar and CW-4 Uttam Singh her father that a local Panchayat was convened and the respondent agreed that he had married complainant and impregnated her. The respondent later allegedly backed out, as such the complainant filed a complaint under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. The learned trial Court held that the ingredients of Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out as there was no lawful marriage and the Section 493 does not penalize mere cohabitation of sexual intercourse with a woman. 8. In fact, in order to make the prosecutrix believe that she was the legally wedded wife of the person in absence of ceremonies cannot be said that the marriage took place between the parties. Thus, there is no question - 4 - of believing the complainant that she was legally married to the respondent. 9. Against the aforesaid background, I do not find it a case worth interference, as such, leave to appeal is refused. Application stands disposed of. Cr.Appeal No.201 of 2010. 8. In view of the refusal of the leave to appeal, the appeal does not survive, hence dismissed. (Surinder Singh), Judge. August 26, 2010. (Pds)