Telangana High Court
Doddapaneni Anvesh And Another vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 25 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7253 of 2022 & 7093 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in both the criminal petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together and are being decided by way of this common order.
2. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal petition No.7253 of 2022 and the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 in Criminal Petition No.7093 of 2021 in C.C.No.162 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition & Excise Offences, Sangareddy, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the D.P. Act').
3. Brief facts of the cases are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police against the petitioners stating that while she and her husband are searching for alliance of their daughter, they got a match of 2 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.7253 of 2022 and 7093 of 2021 accused No.1 and in the month of July, 2019 respondent No.2 got introduced with petitioners and discussed about the marriage and decided to perform marriage. Later, her daughter's engagement was performed with accused No.1. After few days of engagement, daughter of respondent No.2 called respondent No.2 and informed that accused No.1 is demanding more money, demanding to transfer the house property in his name before marriage and also threatened that he will marry another girl if his demands are not full-filled. Accused No.2, who is the sister of accused No.1, is presently residing in USA and she is pursuing her Masters in USA. The petitioners assured respondent No.2 that they will fix the marriage date as soon as they complete the visa proceedings of accused No.1.
4. Thereafter, to keep the relationship strong in future, respondent No.2 advised her daughter to help them by giving money, and accordingly, her daughter gave her credit cards to accused No.1 to pay his sister's fees and to meet the day to day expenses of their parents, who are residing in India. Later, accused No.1 informed to the daughter of respondent No.2 that he and his parents have a dream from their childhood to purchase the luxurious high end Audi car, due to his credit 3 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.7253 of 2022 and 7093 of 2021 score, he cannot obtained loan and requested her to get the same on her name, for which, she got the said car for them.
5. Meanwhile, the daughter of respondent No.2 came to know that accused No.1 used all her money to meet the expenses in changing job and he has lost his job due to his fake experience and taken some net cash on different dates. Accused No.2 has bought a new ipad through credit card. Through legal notice from the bank, the daughter of respondent No.2 came to know that the said ipad and Audi car were returned and later, she came to know that accused No.1 was having illegal intimacy with another woman. While getting ready for marriage arrangements, accused Nos.3 and 4, who are the parents of accused Nos.1 and 2, demanded Rs.50 lakhs, 50 thulas of gold, Ac.1.14 cents of land and the house property. Thereafter, respondent No.2 came to know through her daughter that accused No.1 harassed her and taken an amount of $40,000 from her credit cards. It is further stated that accused No.1 is having intimacy with another woman and that he will not marry her.
6. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.292 of 2020 and after completion of investigation, 4 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.7253 of 2022 and 7093 of 2021 they filed charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Offences, Sangareddy.
7. Heard Sri C. Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the contents of the complaint are accepted to be correct, the petitioners cannot be fastened with the liability under Section 420 of IPC. He further submitted that accused No.1 never agreed for the marriage with the daughter of respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 did not perform the pre-engagement and the parents of the petitioners never received any amount from respondent No.2. He further submitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 never visited India since 2019 and without proper investigation, the Police registered a false case against them and filed the charge sheet.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the daughter of respondent No.2 is only a friend to accused No.1 and there is no love affair between them or idea of marriage. He further submitted that when no marriage was 5 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.7253 of 2022 and 7093 of 2021 performed between accused No.1 and the daughter of respondent No.2, registration of case under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act does not arise. Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioners are vague and baseless and prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against them.
10. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raju Krishna Shedbalkar vs. The State of Karnataka and Anr 1, wherein in paragraph No.8, it is held as follows:
"8. We do not see how an offence even under Section 417 of IPC is made out against the present appellant. There can be multiple reasons for initiating a marriage proposal and then the proposal not reaching the desired end. It may in a given case involve cheating; it is possible theoretically yet in order to prove an offence of cheating in such cases prosecution must have reliable and trustworthy evidence in order to first prosecute such a case. There is no such evidence before the prosecution and therefore no offence under Section 417 is also made out. Consequently, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the trial Court to the extent it has refrained 1 Criminal Appeal No.577 of 2024 6 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.7253 of 2022 and 7093 of 2021 from quashing the proceedings under Section 417 IPC against the present appellant. The petition succeeds, the appeal is allowed to the extend stated above."
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that pre engagement ceremony was conducted and they paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry to the petitioners and daughter of respondent No.2 arranged loan for accused No.2 for payment of college fees. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings and in rarest of rare cases only the proceedings can be quashed and therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
12. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, it appears that there is acquaintance between accused No.1 and daughter of respondent No.2. Later, it is noted that accused No.1 and daughter of respondent No.2 got engaged and to keep their relationship strong in future, the daughter of respondent No.2 has given her credit cards to accused No.1 to meet his and his family expenses. Thereafter, accused No.1 refused to marry her and informed her that he is having intimacy with another woman. Under the guise of 7 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.7253 of 2022 and 7093 of 2021 marriage, accused No.1 used the credit cards of the daughter of respondent No.2. Therefore, the daughter of respondent No.2 issued legal notices to accused No.1 at USA. It is informed to the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint itself is not maintainable, as the incident was not occurred in India and that the pre-engagement was performed in India and the petitioners demanded additional dowry and under the guise of marriage is false allegation, they never used all the money of the daughter of respondent No.2. Later, the daughter of respondent No.2 issued legal notices to the petitioners to recover the money.
13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the record, it appears that there is no mention about performance of the pre-engagement in India in the said legal notices and there is no evidence on record to show that earlier respondent No.2 gave an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the parents of accused No.1. According to the petitioner, accused No.1 never visited India since 2019, whereas the allegation is that Rs.10 lakhs was given to accused No.1 on the day of pre- engagement. Further, the averments in the complaint shows that pre-engagement was performed in the presence of family members of both sides and not between accused No.1 and the 8 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.7253 of 2022 and 7093 of 2021 daughter of respondent No.2. When there is no evidence to prove the said incidents, there is no case to proceed further against the petitioners. Therefore, there are no grounds in the complaint to proceed further, as such, the allegations leveled against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.162 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Offences, Sangareddy, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
___________ K. SUJANA Date: 25.06.2024 SAI