Ramesh Chandra Jena and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.

Decided On : Dec-21-2007

Court : Orissa

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ramesh Chandra Jena and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 417/109 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 493 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 493 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 417',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 9 => 'Section 493 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'R.N. Biswal',
			(int) 1 => 'Nos',
			(int) 2 => 'Nos',
			(int) 3 => 'Learned Addl',
			(int) 4 => 'Caste',
			(int) 5 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 6 => 'Whoever'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '8.3.2003',
			(int) 1 => '390',
			(int) 2 => '1',
			(int) 3 => '2',
			(int) 4 => '3.3',
			(int) 5 => '1',
			(int) 6 => '2',
			(int) 7 => '3',
			(int) 8 => '1',
			(int) 9 => '1',
			(int) 10 => '2',
			(int) 11 => 'three',
			(int) 12 => '2',
			(int) 13 => '1',
			(int) 14 => '2',
			(int) 15 => '3',
			(int) 16 => '2',
			(int) 17 => '1',
			(int) 18 => '2.5',
			(int) 19 => '1',
			(int) 20 => '2',
			(int) 21 => '2',
			(int) 22 => '1',
			(int) 23 => '1',
			(int) 24 => '1',
			(int) 25 => 'two',
			(int) 26 => '1',
			(int) 27 => '2',
			(int) 28 => '2',
			(int) 29 => '2',
			(int) 30 => '1',
			(int) 31 => '3',
			(int) 32 => '1',
			(int) 33 => '1',
			(int) 34 => '3',
			(int) 35 => '2',
			(int) 36 => '1',
			(int) 37 => '3',
			(int) 38 => '1'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.M.F.C.',
			(int) 1 => 'G.R.',
			(int) 2 => 'F.I.R.',
			(int) 3 => 'Gujarat',
			(int) 4 => 'Nos.2'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Aska',
			(int) 1 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 2 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 3 => 'Sections 417/109 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 4 => 'the Benayat Oriya Caste Committee',
			(int) 5 => 'the Benayat Oriya Caste Committee',
			(int) 6 => 'Committee',
			(int) 7 => 'the Caste Committee',
			(int) 8 => 'the Caste Committee',
			(int) 9 => 'the Caste Committee',
			(int) 10 => 'Sections 417/109 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 11 => 'Sections 417/109 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 12 => 'CRLMC'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2002',
			(int) 1 => 'the month of February, 2002',
			(int) 2 => 'ten years',
			(int) 3 => 'one year'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first',
			(int) 1 => 'second'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536454',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Ramesh Chandra Jena and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ramesh Chandra Jena and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  In good faith, she yielded to him and they had sex in three occasions resulting in her conception. 1 time and again to marry her, which clearly shows that she was not deceived by petitioner No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-21',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.N. Biswal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.N. Biswal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 8.3.2003 passed by the J.M.F.C., Aska in G.R. Case No. 390 of 2002 taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 493/417 of I.P.C. against petitioner No. 1 and under Section 417/109 of I.P.C. against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the allegation depicted in the complaint petition which was treated as F.I.R., is believed to be true in its entirety, still then the offence under Section 493 of I.P.C. cannot be made out against petitioner No. 1. However, he fairly submits that there is material to proceed with under Section 417 of I.P.C. against him. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the offence under Sections 417/109 of I.P.C. cannot be attracted against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, even if the entire allegation made against them is accepted in its face value. Learned Addl. Government Advocate supports the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On perusal of the complaint petition it is found that petitioner No. 1 is son of the maternal uncle of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'opp.party No. 2'). So they knew each other from their childhood. It is alleged that during the month of February, 2002 petitioner No. 1 promised to marry opp.party No. 2 and made her to believe that she was lawfully married to him and persuaded her to have sexual intercourse with him. In good faith, she yielded to him and they had sex in three occasions resulting in her conception. Opp.party No. 2 requested petitioner No. 1 to get the marriage solemnized, but on the pretext of earning some money, he left for Gujarat leaving her high and dry. So the matter was placed before the Benayat Oriya Caste Committee to which Caste the petitioners and opp.party No. 2 belong, for the needful. It is alleged that petitioner No. 3 who is the head of the Benayat Oriya Caste Committee influenced the members of the Committee and did not solve the issue. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 2 abated petitioner No. 1 not to marry opp.party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 493 of I.P.C. reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">There is nothing to show, in the present case, that petitioner No. 1 practised deception on opp.party No. 2 to induce her to believe that she was lawfully married to him. As found from the complaint petition, when opp.party No. 2 was in a family way, she requested petitioner No. 1 time and again to marry her, which clearly shows that she was not deceived by petitioner No. 1 to believe that she was his lawfully married wife. So, as rightly submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners, even if the entire allegation made against petitioner No. 1 is believed to be true, still then there is no material to proceed against him under Section 493 of I.P.C., as such it deserves to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Now, it is to be seen, whether the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. can prima facie be attracted against the petitioner No. 1 Section 417 of I.P.C. reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Punishment for cheating - Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with both.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 415 of I.P.C. defines cheating as hereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Cheating.- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to 'cheat' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This Section consists of two parts. The first part relates to property whereas the second party need not relate to it. In the case at hand, because of the false promise made by petitioner No. 1 to marry opp.party No. 2, believing it to be true, the latter submitted herself to him and they had sex. Had he not deceived her, opp.party No. 2, would not have given her consent to have sex with him. Because of the extra marital sexual intercourse, harm was caused to opp. party No. 2 in body, mind and reputation. So, there is prima facie material on record to proceed against petitioner No. 1 for the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As found from the complaint petition and statement of witnesses, the matter could not be settled in the meeting of the Caste Committee. Only because petitioner No. 3 was the head of the Caste Committee, he cannot be said to have abated petitioner No. 1 to commit the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. Moreover, prima facie, it appears that the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. was committed by petitioner No. 1 much prior to the holding of meeting of the Caste Committee, as such, the offence under Sections 417/109 of I.P.C. cannot be attracted to petitioner No. 3. It cannot also be attracted against opp.party No. 2 on the same analogy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Therefore, while the order of taking cognizance under Section 493 of I.P.C. against petitioner No. 1 and the offence under Sections 417/109 of I.P.C. against opp.party Nos.2 and 3 is quashed, the order with regard to taking cognizance of the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. against petitioner No. 1 is hereby confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed in part.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR193',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536454'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ramesh Chandra Jena and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 417/109 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 493 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 493 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 417',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 9 => 'Section 493 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'R.N. Biswal',
		(int) 1 => 'Nos',
		(int) 2 => 'Nos',
		(int) 3 => 'Learned Addl',
		(int) 4 => 'Caste',
		(int) 5 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 6 => 'Whoever'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '8.3.2003',
		(int) 1 => '390',
		(int) 2 => '1',
		(int) 3 => '2',
		(int) 4 => '3.3',
		(int) 5 => '1',
		(int) 6 => '2',
		(int) 7 => '3',
		(int) 8 => '1',
		(int) 9 => '1',
		(int) 10 => '2',
		(int) 11 => 'three',
		(int) 12 => '2',
		(int) 13 => '1',
		(int) 14 => '2',
		(int) 15 => '3',
		(int) 16 => '2',
		(int) 17 => '1',
		(int) 18 => '2.5',
		(int) 19 => '1',
		(int) 20 => '2',
		(int) 21 => '2',
		(int) 22 => '1',
		(int) 23 => '1',
		(int) 24 => '1',
		(int) 25 => 'two',
		(int) 26 => '1',
		(int) 27 => '2',
		(int) 28 => '2',
		(int) 29 => '2',
		(int) 30 => '1',
		(int) 31 => '3',
		(int) 32 => '1',
		(int) 33 => '1',
		(int) 34 => '3',
		(int) 35 => '2',
		(int) 36 => '1',
		(int) 37 => '3',
		(int) 38 => '1'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.M.F.C.',
		(int) 1 => 'G.R.',
		(int) 2 => 'F.I.R.',
		(int) 3 => 'Gujarat',
		(int) 4 => 'Nos.2'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Aska',
		(int) 1 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 2 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 3 => 'Sections 417/109 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 4 => 'the Benayat Oriya Caste Committee',
		(int) 5 => 'the Benayat Oriya Caste Committee',
		(int) 6 => 'Committee',
		(int) 7 => 'the Caste Committee',
		(int) 8 => 'the Caste Committee',
		(int) 9 => 'the Caste Committee',
		(int) 10 => 'Sections 417/109 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 11 => 'Sections 417/109 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 12 => 'CRLMC'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2002',
		(int) 1 => 'the month of February, 2002',
		(int) 2 => 'ten years',
		(int) 3 => 'one year'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first',
		(int) 1 => 'second'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536454',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Ramesh Chandra Jena and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ramesh Chandra Jena and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  In good faith, she yielded to him and they had sex in three occasions resulting in her conception. 1 time and again to marry her, which clearly shows that she was not deceived by petitioner No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-21',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.N. Biswal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.N. Biswal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 8.3.2003 passed by the J.M.F.C., Aska in G.R. Case No. 390 of 2002 taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 493/417 of I.P.C. against petitioner No. 1 and under Section 417/109 of I.P.C. against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the allegation depicted in the complaint petition which was treated as F.I.R., is believed to be true in its entirety, still then the offence under Section 493 of I.P.C. cannot be made out against petitioner No. 1. However, he fairly submits that there is material to proceed with under Section 417 of I.P.C. against him. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the offence under Sections 417/109 of I.P.C. cannot be attracted against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, even if the entire allegation made against them is accepted in its face value. Learned Addl. Government Advocate supports the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On perusal of the complaint petition it is found that petitioner No. 1 is son of the maternal uncle of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'opp.party No. 2'). So they knew each other from their childhood. It is alleged that during the month of February, 2002 petitioner No. 1 promised to marry opp.party No. 2 and made her to believe that she was lawfully married to him and persuaded her to have sexual intercourse with him. In good faith, she yielded to him and they had sex in three occasions resulting in her conception. Opp.party No. 2 requested petitioner No. 1 to get the marriage solemnized, but on the pretext of earning some money, he left for Gujarat leaving her high and dry. So the matter was placed before the Benayat Oriya Caste Committee to which Caste the petitioners and opp.party No. 2 belong, for the needful. It is alleged that petitioner No. 3 who is the head of the Benayat Oriya Caste Committee influenced the members of the Committee and did not solve the issue. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 2 abated petitioner No. 1 not to marry opp.party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 493 of I.P.C. reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">There is nothing to show, in the present case, that petitioner No. 1 practised deception on opp.party No. 2 to induce her to believe that she was lawfully married to him. As found from the complaint petition, when opp.party No. 2 was in a family way, she requested petitioner No. 1 time and again to marry her, which clearly shows that she was not deceived by petitioner No. 1 to believe that she was his lawfully married wife. So, as rightly submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners, even if the entire allegation made against petitioner No. 1 is believed to be true, still then there is no material to proceed against him under Section 493 of I.P.C., as such it deserves to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Now, it is to be seen, whether the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. can prima facie be attracted against the petitioner No. 1 Section 417 of I.P.C. reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Punishment for cheating - Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with both.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 415 of I.P.C. defines cheating as hereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Cheating.- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to 'cheat' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This Section consists of two parts. The first part relates to property whereas the second party need not relate to it. In the case at hand, because of the false promise made by petitioner No. 1 to marry opp.party No. 2, believing it to be true, the latter submitted herself to him and they had sex. Had he not deceived her, opp.party No. 2, would not have given her consent to have sex with him. Because of the extra marital sexual intercourse, harm was caused to opp. party No. 2 in body, mind and reputation. So, there is prima facie material on record to proceed against petitioner No. 1 for the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As found from the complaint petition and statement of witnesses, the matter could not be settled in the meeting of the Caste Committee. Only because petitioner No. 3 was the head of the Caste Committee, he cannot be said to have abated petitioner No. 1 to commit the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. Moreover, prima facie, it appears that the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. was committed by petitioner No. 1 much prior to the holding of meeting of the Caste Committee, as such, the offence under Sections 417/109 of I.P.C. cannot be attracted to petitioner No. 3. It cannot also be attracted against opp.party No. 2 on the same analogy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Therefore, while the order of taking cognizance under Section 493 of I.P.C. against petitioner No. 1 and the offence under Sections 417/109 of I.P.C. against opp.party Nos.2 and 3 is quashed, the order with regard to taking cognizance of the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. against petitioner No. 1 is hereby confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed in part.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR193',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536454'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ramesh Chandra Jena and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 417/109 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 493 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 493 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 417',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 9 => 'Section 493 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'R.N. Biswal',
			(int) 1 => 'Nos',
			(int) 2 => 'Nos',
			(int) 3 => 'Learned Addl',
			(int) 4 => 'Caste',
			(int) 5 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 6 => 'Whoever'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '8.3.2003',
			(int) 1 => '390',
			(int) 2 => '1',
			(int) 3 => '2',
			(int) 4 => '3.3',
			(int) 5 => '1',
			(int) 6 => '2',
			(int) 7 => '3',
			(int) 8 => '1',
			(int) 9 => '1',
			(int) 10 => '2',
			(int) 11 => 'three',
			(int) 12 => '2',
			(int) 13 => '1',
			(int) 14 => '2',
			(int) 15 => '3',
			(int) 16 => '2',
			(int) 17 => '1',
			(int) 18 => '2.5',
			(int) 19 => '1',
			(int) 20 => '2',
			(int) 21 => '2',
			(int) 22 => '1',
			(int) 23 => '1',
			(int) 24 => '1',
			(int) 25 => 'two',
			(int) 26 => '1',
			(int) 27 => '2',
			(int) 28 => '2',
			(int) 29 => '2',
			(int) 30 => '1',
			(int) 31 => '3',
			(int) 32 => '1',
			(int) 33 => '1',
			(int) 34 => '3',
			(int) 35 => '2',
			(int) 36 => '1',
			(int) 37 => '3',
			(int) 38 => '1'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.M.F.C.',
			(int) 1 => 'G.R.',
			(int) 2 => 'F.I.R.',
			(int) 3 => 'Gujarat',
			(int) 4 => 'Nos.2'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Aska',
			(int) 1 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 2 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 3 => 'Sections 417/109 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 4 => 'the Benayat Oriya Caste Committee',
			(int) 5 => 'the Benayat Oriya Caste Committee',
			(int) 6 => 'Committee',
			(int) 7 => 'the Caste Committee',
			(int) 8 => 'the Caste Committee',
			(int) 9 => 'the Caste Committee',
			(int) 10 => 'Sections 417/109 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 11 => 'Sections 417/109 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 12 => 'CRLMC'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2002',
			(int) 1 => 'the month of February, 2002',
			(int) 2 => 'ten years',
			(int) 3 => 'one year'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first',
			(int) 1 => 'second'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536454',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Ramesh Chandra Jena and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ramesh Chandra Jena and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  In good faith, she yielded to him and they had sex in three occasions resulting in her conception. 1 time and again to marry her, which clearly shows that she was not deceived by petitioner No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-21',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.N. Biswal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.N. Biswal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 8.3.2003 passed by the J.M.F.C., Aska in G.R. Case No. 390 of 2002 taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 493/417 of I.P.C. against petitioner No. 1 and under Section 417/109 of I.P.C. against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the allegation depicted in the complaint petition which was treated as F.I.R., is believed to be true in its entirety, still then the offence under Section 493 of I.P.C. cannot be made out against petitioner No. 1. However, he fairly submits that there is material to proceed with under Section 417 of I.P.C. against him. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the offence under Sections 417/109 of I.P.C. cannot be attracted against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, even if the entire allegation made against them is accepted in its face value. Learned Addl. Government Advocate supports the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On perusal of the complaint petition it is found that petitioner No. 1 is son of the maternal uncle of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'opp.party No. 2'). So they knew each other from their childhood. It is alleged that during the month of February, 2002 petitioner No. 1 promised to marry opp.party No. 2 and made her to believe that she was lawfully married to him and persuaded her to have sexual intercourse with him. In good faith, she yielded to him and they had sex in three occasions resulting in her conception. Opp.party No. 2 requested petitioner No. 1 to get the marriage solemnized, but on the pretext of earning some money, he left for Gujarat leaving her high and dry. So the matter was placed before the Benayat Oriya Caste Committee to which Caste the petitioners and opp.party No. 2 belong, for the needful. It is alleged that petitioner No. 3 who is the head of the Benayat Oriya Caste Committee influenced the members of the Committee and did not solve the issue. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 2 abated petitioner No. 1 not to marry opp.party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 493 of I.P.C. reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">There is nothing to show, in the present case, that petitioner No. 1 practised deception on opp.party No. 2 to induce her to believe that she was lawfully married to him. As found from the complaint petition, when opp.party No. 2 was in a family way, she requested petitioner No. 1 time and again to marry her, which clearly shows that she was not deceived by petitioner No. 1 to believe that she was his lawfully married wife. So, as rightly submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners, even if the entire allegation made against petitioner No. 1 is believed to be true, still then there is no material to proceed against him under Section 493 of I.P.C., as such it deserves to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Now, it is to be seen, whether the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. can prima facie be attracted against the petitioner No. 1 Section 417 of I.P.C. reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Punishment for cheating - Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with both.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 415 of I.P.C. defines cheating as hereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Cheating.- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to 'cheat' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This Section consists of two parts. The first part relates to property whereas the second party need not relate to it. In the case at hand, because of the false promise made by petitioner No. 1 to marry opp.party No. 2, believing it to be true, the latter submitted herself to him and they had sex. Had he not deceived her, opp.party No. 2, would not have given her consent to have sex with him. Because of the extra marital sexual intercourse, harm was caused to opp. party No. 2 in body, mind and reputation. So, there is prima facie material on record to proceed against petitioner No. 1 for the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As found from the complaint petition and statement of witnesses, the matter could not be settled in the meeting of the Caste Committee. Only because petitioner No. 3 was the head of the Caste Committee, he cannot be said to have abated petitioner No. 1 to commit the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. Moreover, prima facie, it appears that the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. was committed by petitioner No. 1 much prior to the holding of meeting of the Caste Committee, as such, the offence under Sections 417/109 of I.P.C. cannot be attracted to petitioner No. 3. It cannot also be attracted against opp.party No. 2 on the same analogy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Therefore, while the order of taking cognizance under Section 493 of I.P.C. against petitioner No. 1 and the offence under Sections 417/109 of I.P.C. against opp.party Nos.2 and 3 is quashed, the order with regard to taking cognizance of the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. against petitioner No. 1 is hereby confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed in part.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR193',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536454'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ramesh Chandra Jena and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 417/109 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 493 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 493 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 417',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 9 => 'Section 493 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 417 of I.P.C.'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'R.N. Biswal',
		(int) 1 => 'Nos',
		(int) 2 => 'Nos',
		(int) 3 => 'Learned Addl',
		(int) 4 => 'Caste',
		(int) 5 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 6 => 'Whoever'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '8.3.2003',
		(int) 1 => '390',
		(int) 2 => '1',
		(int) 3 => '2',
		(int) 4 => '3.3',
		(int) 5 => '1',
		(int) 6 => '2',
		(int) 7 => '3',
		(int) 8 => '1',
		(int) 9 => '1',
		(int) 10 => '2',
		(int) 11 => 'three',
		(int) 12 => '2',
		(int) 13 => '1',
		(int) 14 => '2',
		(int) 15 => '3',
		(int) 16 => '2',
		(int) 17 => '1',
		(int) 18 => '2.5',
		(int) 19 => '1',
		(int) 20 => '2',
		(int) 21 => '2',
		(int) 22 => '1',
		(int) 23 => '1',
		(int) 24 => '1',
		(int) 25 => 'two',
		(int) 26 => '1',
		(int) 27 => '2',
		(int) 28 => '2',
		(int) 29 => '2',
		(int) 30 => '1',
		(int) 31 => '3',
		(int) 32 => '1',
		(int) 33 => '1',
		(int) 34 => '3',
		(int) 35 => '2',
		(int) 36 => '1',
		(int) 37 => '3',
		(int) 38 => '1'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.M.F.C.',
		(int) 1 => 'G.R.',
		(int) 2 => 'F.I.R.',
		(int) 3 => 'Gujarat',
		(int) 4 => 'Nos.2'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Aska',
		(int) 1 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 2 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 3 => 'Sections 417/109 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 4 => 'the Benayat Oriya Caste Committee',
		(int) 5 => 'the Benayat Oriya Caste Committee',
		(int) 6 => 'Committee',
		(int) 7 => 'the Caste Committee',
		(int) 8 => 'the Caste Committee',
		(int) 9 => 'the Caste Committee',
		(int) 10 => 'Sections 417/109 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 11 => 'Sections 417/109 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 12 => 'CRLMC'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2002',
		(int) 1 => 'the month of February, 2002',
		(int) 2 => 'ten years',
		(int) 3 => 'one year'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first',
		(int) 1 => 'second'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536454',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Ramesh Chandra Jena and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ramesh Chandra Jena and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  In good faith, she yielded to him and they had sex in three occasions resulting in her conception. 1 time and again to marry her, which clearly shows that she was not deceived by petitioner No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-21',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.N. Biswal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.N. Biswal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 8.3.2003 passed by the J.M.F.C., Aska in G.R. Case No. 390 of 2002 taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 493/417 of I.P.C. against petitioner No. 1 and under Section 417/109 of I.P.C. against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the allegation depicted in the complaint petition which was treated as F.I.R., is believed to be true in its entirety, still then the offence under Section 493 of I.P.C. cannot be made out against petitioner No. 1. However, he fairly submits that there is material to proceed with under Section 417 of I.P.C. against him. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the offence under Sections 417/109 of I.P.C. cannot be attracted against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, even if the entire allegation made against them is accepted in its face value. Learned Addl. Government Advocate supports the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On perusal of the complaint petition it is found that petitioner No. 1 is son of the maternal uncle of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'opp.party No. 2'). So they knew each other from their childhood. It is alleged that during the month of February, 2002 petitioner No. 1 promised to marry opp.party No. 2 and made her to believe that she was lawfully married to him and persuaded her to have sexual intercourse with him. In good faith, she yielded to him and they had sex in three occasions resulting in her conception. Opp.party No. 2 requested petitioner No. 1 to get the marriage solemnized, but on the pretext of earning some money, he left for Gujarat leaving her high and dry. So the matter was placed before the Benayat Oriya Caste Committee to which Caste the petitioners and opp.party No. 2 belong, for the needful. It is alleged that petitioner No. 3 who is the head of the Benayat Oriya Caste Committee influenced the members of the Committee and did not solve the issue. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 2 abated petitioner No. 1 not to marry opp.party No. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 493 of I.P.C. reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">There is nothing to show, in the present case, that petitioner No. 1 practised deception on opp.party No. 2 to induce her to believe that she was lawfully married to him. As found from the complaint petition, when opp.party No. 2 was in a family way, she requested petitioner No. 1 time and again to marry her, which clearly shows that she was not deceived by petitioner No. 1 to believe that she was his lawfully married wife. So, as rightly submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners, even if the entire allegation made against petitioner No. 1 is believed to be true, still then there is no material to proceed against him under Section 493 of I.P.C., as such it deserves to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Now, it is to be seen, whether the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. can prima facie be attracted against the petitioner No. 1 Section 417 of I.P.C. reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Punishment for cheating - Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with both.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 415 of I.P.C. defines cheating as hereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Cheating.- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to 'cheat' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This Section consists of two parts. The first part relates to property whereas the second party need not relate to it. In the case at hand, because of the false promise made by petitioner No. 1 to marry opp.party No. 2, believing it to be true, the latter submitted herself to him and they had sex. Had he not deceived her, opp.party No. 2, would not have given her consent to have sex with him. Because of the extra marital sexual intercourse, harm was caused to opp. party No. 2 in body, mind and reputation. So, there is prima facie material on record to proceed against petitioner No. 1 for the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As found from the complaint petition and statement of witnesses, the matter could not be settled in the meeting of the Caste Committee. Only because petitioner No. 3 was the head of the Caste Committee, he cannot be said to have abated petitioner No. 1 to commit the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. Moreover, prima facie, it appears that the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. was committed by petitioner No. 1 much prior to the holding of meeting of the Caste Committee, as such, the offence under Sections 417/109 of I.P.C. cannot be attracted to petitioner No. 3. It cannot also be attracted against opp.party No. 2 on the same analogy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Therefore, while the order of taking cognizance under Section 493 of I.P.C. against petitioner No. 1 and the offence under Sections 417/109 of I.P.C. against opp.party Nos.2 and 3 is quashed, the order with regard to taking cognizance of the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. against petitioner No. 1 is hereby confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed in part.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR193',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536454'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 417/109 of I.P.C., Section 493 of I.P.C., Section 417 of I.P.C., Section 493 of I.P.C., Section 417 of I.P.C., Section 417 of I.P.C., Section 417, Section 417 of I.P.C., Section 417 of I.P.C., Section 493 of I.P.C., Section 417 of I.P.C.

PERSON: R.N. Biswal, Nos, Nos, Learned Addl, Caste, Counsel, Whoever

NORP: J.1

CARDINAL: 8.3.2003, 390, 1, 2, 3.3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, three, 2, 1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2.5, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, two, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1, 3, 1

GPE: J.M.F.C., G.R., F.I.R., Gujarat, Nos.2

ORG: Aska, Learned Counsel, Learned Counsel, Sections 417/109 of I.P.C., the Benayat Oriya Caste Committee, the Benayat Oriya Caste Committee, Committee, the Caste Committee, the Caste Committee, the Caste Committee, Sections 417/109 of I.P.C., Sections 417/109 of I.P.C., CRLMC

DATE: 2002, the month of February, 2002, ten years, one year

ORDINAL: first, second