SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Monday, September 18, 2023

Printed For: GuestUser 0025, Khaitan & Co. LLP
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2022 SCC OnLine Raj 3289 : (2022) 3 RLW 2323

In the High Court of Rajasthan

(BEFORE DINESH MEHTA, J.)

Priyanka Purohit and Others

Versus
State of Rajasthan and Another
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 7045 of 2021
Decided on March 29, 2022

Penal Code, Sec. 428, 494, 496, 503, 506, 34 and 120-B read with Cr.
P.C., 1973, Sec. 482 — Quashing of F.I.R. No. 192/2021 — His earlier F.I.R.
No. 174/2015 filed in matrimonial dispute leveling allegations of offences
under Section 420, 406, 120-B is being tried by competent Criminal Court —
Held — Complainant wife is living separately since 2015 — Allegations of
cheating and taking away ornaments relate back to the year 2015, in
relation where of F.M.R. had already been filed and the case is being tried —
Present F.I.R/consists of allegations for which case is already pending
consideration — The only offence which has now been alleged to have been
committed by the petitioner No. 1 is contracting marriage without getting
earlier marriage dissolved is accordance with law — The offence u/Sec. 494
I.P.C. is non-cognizable offence that too pursuant to complaint filed by
aggrieved party — F.I.R. quashed being contrary to law.
(Paras 9-15)
Petition allowed.

Page: 2324

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Shy am S. Khatri, for Petitioners;
S.K. Bhati, P.P., for Respondent.;
Pritam Joshi, for Complainant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MEHTA, J.:— By way of the present petition the petitioners
have challenged the FIR No. 192/2021 dated 02.09.2021 registered
against the petitioners for the offences punishable under the provisions
of Sections 420, 494, 496, 503, 506, 34 & 120-B of Penal Code, 1860.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Monday, September 18, 2023
Printed For: GuestUser 0025, Khaitan & Co. LLP
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

matrimonial dispute arose between the petitioner No. 1 (wife) and the
complainant (husband), due to which he had filed an FIR No. 174/2015
which was registered at Police Station Khajuwala, District Bikaner
levelling allegations of offences under the provisions of Section 420,
406 & 120-B IPC and the case is being tried by the competent Criminal
Court.
3. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner No. 1 left the
matrimonial house in the year 2015 itself whereafter the FIR No.
174/2015 came to be lodged by her husband, whereafter the petitioner
No. 1 is living separately and the matter is pending consideration of the
competent Court.
4. Learned counsel argued that in the FIR under challenge, the
complainant has levelled the allegation that the petitioner No. 1 has
contracted second marriage without getting a decree of divorce and in
that case also the complainant has again levelled allegations of
cheating him and taking away the valuables and other ornaments.
5. Learned counsel further argued that so far as cheating and taking
away other valuable articles/ornaments is concerned, the complainant
had already filed an FIR in the year 2015, whereafter the petitioner No.
1 is living separately. He added that the allegations in the present FIR
are nothing but reiteration of the allegations levelled in the earlier FIR.
In the present case, only a new allegation has been levelled that
petitioner No. 1 has contracted marriage with petitioner No. 6 Sujal
Mesi @ Samir, which at the maximum constitutes an offence under
Section 494 IPC.
6. Learned counsel argued that the offence under Section 494 IPC is
non-cognizable and thus, no FIR can be registered for such offence and
the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for other offences, as earlier
FIR/case for the very same allegation is pending trial.

Page: 2325

7. Learned Public Prosecutor admitted the fact that the offence under
Section 494 IPC is non-cognizable and cognizance can be taken by the
Magistrate only, pursuant to complaint filed in accordance with law.
8. Mr. Pritam Joshi, learned counsel for the complainant submitted
that FIR in question is clearly maintainable, as the complainant has
been cheated.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the material available on record, it is clear that the petitioner No. 1 -
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Monday, September 18, 2023
Printed For: GuestUser 0025, Khaitan & Co. LLP
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

wife of the complainant is living separately since 2015.

10. Allegations of cheating and taking away the ornaments thus
relate back to the year 2015 in relation whereof an FIR had already
been registered and the case is being tried by the competent Court.
11. The present FIR consists of the allegations for which the case is
already pending consideration before the competent Court and the only
offence which has now been alleged to have been committed by the
petitioner No. 1 is, contracting marriage with Mr. Sujal Mesi on
19.03.2021.
12. In the opinion of this Court, the offence, if any, has been
committed by the petitioner No. 1 on 19.03.2021 i.e. contracting
marriage without getting the earlier marriage dissolved in accordance
with law. The other allegations relate back to period prior to 2015 for
which the petitioner No. 1 is already under trial.
13. That apart, the offence under Section 494 IPC is a non-
cognizable offence. Such offence not being an offence against the State
is punishable subject to cognizance to be taken by a competent Court
that too pursuant to a complaint filed by the aggrieved party.
14. In view of the discussion foregoing, the FIR in question is
contrary to law. The petition is thus, allowed and the FIR No. 192/2021
lodged at Police Station Khajuwala, District Bikaner against the
petitioners is hereby quashed.
15. The complainant shall be free to take appropriate proceedings for
offence of entering into second marriage allegedly committed by the
petitioner No. 1, which is punishable under Section 494 IPC.
16. Stay application too stands disposed of accordingly.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.