HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.4515 OF 2017
Between:
M.Aruna Venkat Prasad and another. ...Petitioners
And
State of Telangana, rep. by
Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Hyderabad and another. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 01.11.2022
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to Yes/No
see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their
Ladyship/Lordship wish to see Yes/No
the fair copy of the Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 4515 of 2017
% Dated 01.11.2022
# M.Aruna Venkat Prasad and another ... Petitioners
And
$ State of Telangana, rep. by
Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Hyderabad and another ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu.
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri S.Sudershan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 468
2 (2005)10 Supreme Court Cases 336
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4515 of 2017
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 and A3 in CC No.51 of 2017 on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The petitioners/A2 and A3 are parents of A1. The defacto complainant/2nd respondent filed complaint on 26.04.2013 stating that her third daughter's profile was given in a marriage bureau. A1 expressed his interest in the alliance and A1 informed that his father's name was Prasad residing at Vijayawada and they own a house in Jubilee Hills and his father is a Telugu Desam worker whose phone number is 9666900427. The person who talked on phone as father of A-1 informed about his family and also stated that he was in London for his daughter's delivery and he would come back to India after 17th March and thereafter, marriage of A-1 could be performed. On the next day, the defacto complainant was called on phone and informed that 13th March would be a good day for marriage and asked her to start making marriage arrangements 4 and he would also make arrangements from London. He further informed that he once arrived in India, he would visit their house. A1 met the defacto complainant at Hotel along with her second daughter, son-in-law and younger daughter and A1 showed one house in Jubilee Hills and informed that it was their house. It was informed to A1 by complainant that their budget was only Rs.10.00 lakhs. A1 took an amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs from her stating that he has to meet expenditure of marriage hall, decoration, mandapam etc. It was also informed that gold ornaments were taken. A1 also informed that they were friends with Chandrababu Naidu and Vijayawada MLA Vallabhaneni Vamsi. However, after receiving the amount of Rupees 6 lakhs, A1 and his father started ignoring, for which reason, the defacto complainant filed the present complaint suspecting them.
3. The police having investigated the offence found that it was A1 who was talking on phone as his father and in fact, the petitioners do not have knowledge about the acts of A1. Further, during the course of investigation, when they have taken to police custody, A1 brought the cash from the house and police recovered an amount of 5 Rs.3.00 lakhs. The police filed memo in the court stating that it was A1 who had cheated and taken money from the defacto complainant and these petitioners do not have any role to play and accordingly, they intended to delete the names of these petitioners. The said memo intimating about there being no role or knowledge about the acts of A1 and intending to delete the names of these petitioners were filed on 11.05.2013. The certified copy of the said memo dated 11.05.2013 after police custody is also filed.
4. However, the charge sheet was filed in the month of December, 2016 and taken on file on 21.03.2017 for the offence under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act against A1 and these petitioners/A2 and A3. In the entire charge sheet, after narrating all the incidents stating that it was A1, who had interacted with the defacto complainant and others and also impersonated as his father on telephone, however, one sentence is added in the charge sheet stating as follows:
"The accused A2 and A3 are the parents of the accused A1 and they are well aware of the activities and income sources of the accused A1. In spite of knowing all the things very well A2 and A3 accepted the cash."6
5. Even according to the investigation done and when the police had taken custody of A1, it was found that these petitioners did not even have knowledge about the acts of A1 and the money of Rs.3.00 lakhs was recovered at the instance of A1. Admittedly, the defacto complainant or any other witnesses never interacted with these petitioners at any point of time. All the time, it was A1 who was talking to the defacto complainant impersonating as A2, who is the father of A1. In the statements made by the witnesses, who are defacto complainant/L.W.1, L.W.2, who is the second daughter of the defacto complainant, L.W.3, son-in-law of the defacto complainant, would only reveal that they were interacting with A1 all the time and at no point of time, did they meet or interact with these petitioners.
6. To attract an offence under Section 420 of IPC, it has to be shown that there was deliberate false statement made and believing the said false statement, the person must have been induced to part with the property. When these petitioners did not interact with any of the witnesses, the question of defrauding the defacto complainant does not arise. Likewise, an offence under Section 7 66(D) of the Information Technology Act also not made out against these petitioners
7. In Rekha Jain v The State of Karnataka and another [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 468] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that as per Section 420 of IPC, whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, can be said to have committed the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Therefore, to make out a case against a person for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, there must be a dishonest inducement to deceive a person to deliver any property to any other person.
8. In Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar and another [(2005)10 Supreme Court Cases 336], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the complaint does not disclose any offence much less an offence under Section 420 IPC, allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and to prevent the same, it was just and expedient for the High Court to quash the same by exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
8
9. In view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra, the trial against these petitioners/A2 and A3 would be futile and there is absolutely no evidence, which is collected against these petitioners by the prosecution, as such, the proceedings against these petitioners are liable to be quashed.
10. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 and A3 in CC No.51 of 2017 on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are hereby quashed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 01.11.2022 Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs 9 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.4515 of 2017 Date: 01.11.2022.
kvs 10 11