1 2026:CGHC:18407 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 276 of 2023 Reserved on 30/03/2026 Pronounced on 22/04/2026 Smt. Manti Sahu W/o Mahesh Ganjir, present Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village And Post Belgaon, P.S. and Tehsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Mahesh Ganjir S/o Dharmuram Ganjir, present Aged About 51 Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Sevetapara, Dongargarh, P.S. Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- Respondent Appellant- Smt. Manti Sahu : In person For Respondent : Shri Sudhir Verma, Advocate appears along with Shri C.R. Sahu and Shri Mohnesh Tiwari, Advocates and Shri Mahesh Ganjir-Respondent appeared in person. Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal CAV Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Complainant- Smt. Manti Sahu under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 12.10.2022, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Complaint Case No.3028/2011, whereby, the SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2026.04.22 17:38:40 +0530 2 complaint filed by her was dismissed and, thereby, the respondent- Mahesh Ganjir has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 493 and 496 of IPC. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the Respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 493 and 496 of IPC on the allegations levelled by the Complainant, that her marriage with him was solemnized on 08.05.2008 at village Sankaradahra of District Rajnandgaon and, an Ekrarnama with regard to her marriage was executed on 21.01.2009, since then they are living as husband and wife and during this period, they visited at various places and the respondent has made physical relations with her. Further of her allegation was that she incurred a sum of Rs.85,000/- during her visit on several places and, when she refused to provide him money on his demand, he refused to keep her as his wife and drove her out from the house. 3. Although, it was alleged by the Complainant that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 08.05.2008, but a bare perusal of her notice (Ex.P-1), issued on 05.01.2009, would, however, show that marriage of her was not stated to be solemnized as such on 08.05.2008 and, even in her Complaint (Ex.P-14) made on 15.06.2009, before the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, no reference as such was made and, instead, it was stated therein that the respondent on the pretext of marriage has made physical relations with her in the month of May to September, 2008 on various places. In view of the contents made therein, it, therefore, cannot be said that her marriage was solemnized with him on 08.05.2008, as alleged and deposed by her. 3 4. It is to be seen further, as reflected from her another notice, dated 13.05.2009 (Ex.P-10), that her alleged marriage was made with the consent of his first wife, namely, Maheshwari Ganjir. It, thus, appears that she was fully aware that the respondent was already a married man and, therefore, the alleged Ekrarnama (Ex.P-4), executed on 21.01.2009, was held to be invalid and was held to be not binding upon them by the Second Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon vide its judgment, dated 11.10.2021 passed in appeal, being Civil Appeal No.13-A/2020, as the same was found to be hit by the provisions prescribed under Section 5 read with Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 5. The aforesaid finding was affirmed further by this Court vide judgment dated 12.08.2022 in Second Appeal No.326/2021, preferred by the Complainant. In view of such circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent dishonestly or fraudulently performed the alleged marriage, as alleged by the Complainant. It is, thus, evident that deceit of the kind contemplated under Section 493 of IPC has not been fulfilled. The said provision is relevant for the purpose, which reads as under :- 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. 6. From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it, thus, appears that the essence of an offence under the aforesaid provision consists in the practice of deception by a man on a woman, in consequence of which, she is led to believe that she is lawfully married to him even though, in 4 fact, they are not lawfully married. The ingredients necessary to be established for bringing home the offence under the said provision are firstly, the accused practiced deception; secondly, such deceit was to induce the woman (complainant) to believe that she was lawfully married to him; and, thirdly, there was cohabitation or sexual intercourse as a result of the deception. 7. At this juncture, it is to be seen the principles laid down by the Orissa High Court in the matter of Raghunath Padhy v. The State, reported in AIR 1957, Ori.198, wherein, while considering the essentials of Section 493, I.P.C. held inter alia, that to prove deception it must be conclusively established that the accused either dishonestly or fraudulently concealed certain facts, or made a false statement knowing it to be false. In that case some sort of marriage ceremony took place between the petitioner, a Brahmin aged 22 years (with his wife living) and a Brahmin widow, the woman being made to wear new clothes and put on new bangles and also vermillion mark on her forehead; there being also an exchange of garlands between the two. It was held that the element of deception was wanting in the case. The said Court clarified that the petitioner's subsequent conduct in deserting her after she became pregnant and in even repudiating the marriage, though an important piece of evidence, will not suffice by itself to show that at the time when he participated in the ceremonies he intended to deceive her. 8. The essence of the said section is, therefore, the deception caused by a man on a woman in consequence of which she is led to believe that she is lawfully married to him while in fact they are not lawfully married. 5 In order to establish deception there must first be allegations that the accused falsely induced her to believe that she is legally wedded to him. Therefore, in a case where both the man and woman fully knew that they are not husband and wife and no ceremony of marriage took place between them, there is no question of one of them believing otherwise. 9. It, thus, appears, as revealed from the contents made in the complaint vis-a-vis, her statement, that neither there is any allegation within the four corners of the complaint petition, nor is it stated by her or her witnesses in their deposition that the respondent-accused had falsely induced her to believe that she is legally wedded to him. Rather, it appears from her testimony that she was aware that the respondent was a married man having a living wife and child. Therefore, the essential ingredient of deception caused by him on the complainant, that she is led by him to believe that she is lawfully married to him is, however, not found to be established and, instead, they are not found to be lawfully married borne out from the allegations in the alleged complaint made by her and/or, the evidence led by her. 10. In view of the aforesaid background, I am of the view that the cognizance for the offence under Sections 493 and 496 of I.P.C. has rightly been turned down by the trial Court. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita