Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Siddharth Narendra Banthia, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 3rd September 2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, rejecting his discharge application in Sessions Case No. 188 of 2019. The case arose from a complaint by the prosecutrix, an actress, who alleged that the petitioner induced her to part with Rs. 8 lakhs for procuring a flat under government quota, married her while concealing his previous marriage, and later withdrew money from a joint account. She also alleged rape on the promise of marriage. The petitioner sought discharge under Section 227 CrPC, arguing that the allegations did not make out a prima facie case. The High Court analyzed the facts: the prosecutrix was a divorcee, the petitioner represented himself as a bachelor, but the marriage was performed with her family's consent. The court noted that the prosecutrix continued the relationship even after learning of the petitioner's previous marriage in September 2010, and the sexual relationship was consensual. The court held that for cheating, deception must be from the inception; here, the petitioner's failure to fulfill promises did not amount to cheating. For rape, consent given under a misconception of fact does not vitiate consent if the woman was aware of the facts. The court found no prima facie case for criminal breach of trust as the flat transaction was civil. The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and discharged the petitioner from all offences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge - Section 227 CrPC - Standard of Proof - The court must consider the police report and documents to see if a prima facie case exists; if not, the accused is entitled to be discharged. Held that the trial court erred in rejecting the discharge application as the allegations did not disclose deception from the inception of the relationship (Paras 1-10). B) Indian Penal Code - Cheating - Section 415 IPC - Deception from Inception - For an offence of cheating, the deception must be at the inception of the transaction; subsequent failure to fulfill a promise does not amount to cheating. Held that the petitioner's representation of being a bachelor was not the sole basis for the marriage, and the relationship was consensual (Paras 11-20). C) Indian Penal Code - Rape - Section 375 IPC - Consent under misconception - Section 90 IPC - A promise to marry without intention to fulfill does not vitiate consent if the woman was aware of the facts and consented voluntarily. Held that the prosecutrix, being an educated adult, was aware of the petitioner's marital status and continued the relationship, thus no rape made out (Paras 21-30). D) Indian Penal Code - Criminal Breach of Trust - Section 405 IPC - Entrustment - Mere failure to return money does not constitute criminal breach of trust without proof of dishonest misappropriation. Held that the transaction regarding the flat was a civil dispute and not criminal (Paras 31-35).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417, 420, 406, 506 read with 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Adults) Act, 2016, on the ground that the allegations do not make out a prima facie case.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order dated 3rd September 2021, and discharged the petitioner from all offences in Sessions Case No. 188 of 2019.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 227 CrPC
- Ingredients of Section 415 IPC
- Deception from inception
- Consensual sexual relationship
- Promise to marry
- Breach of promise vs. Cheating
- Section 375 IPC Exception
- Section 90 IPC
- Void marriage under Section 12 Hindu Marriage Act
