Criminal Procedure vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 3272 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3272 AP
Judgement Date : 4 July, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Criminal Procedure vs Unknown on 4 July, 2022

                                 1



           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

               CRIMINAL PETITION No.1614 of 2015

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioners/A1 to A3, A5

and A6, to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.58 of

2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bapatla,

Guntur District.

2. A charge sheet has been registered against the petitioners

for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with 34 IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Brief facts of the case are that A1 is the son of A2 and A3, A4

is the marriage broker while A5 and A6 are the elder sister and

elder brother-in-law respectively of A1. It is alleged that the

marriage talks were held on 14.06.2014 between A1 and the

de facto complainant by the elders of their families. On

25.06.2014, A5 and A6 asked opinion of de facto complainant for

marriage proposal. Later parents of both sides decided to write

marriage proposal agreement on 04.07.2014 and to perform

marriage on 14.08.2014 at about 7.45 a.m. The parents of de

facto complainant gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-towards house

expenses, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards gold and an amount

of Rs.50,000/- towards sister-in-law's dowry to A1 to A3 in the

presence K.Anjaneyulu, M.Venkateswarlu, R.Subba Rao, D.Vijaya

Kumar, R.Nagamalleswara Rao and K.Ramesh (LWs.4 to 9).

4. It is stated that the de facto complainant worked as

Assistant Professor in Gayathri Vidya Parishad College,

Vijayanagaram Branch and on the instructions of A1, she resigned

her job. Thereafter, A1 to A3 informed de facto complainant

through phone to cancel the marriage on the ground of insufficient

dowry. When questioned A1 to A3 at their house, they stated that

the dowry is not sufficient and closed doors by abusing the

de facto complainant and her parents in filthy language. In spite

of their requests and mediation, there was no response. The

de facto complainant came to know that A1 is getting married

another woman for more dowry. Hence, she lodged a report

alleging that A1 and his family members cheated the de facto

complainant and the same was registered as a case in Crime

No.146 of 2014 of Bapatla Rural Police Station on 12.08.2014.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State.

Though notice is served on the 2nd respondent, she did not choose

to appear.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is

that the marriage of A1 and the de facto complainant was

cancelled, in view of the disputes between them. He further

contended that even if the allegations are accepted as true, no

offence under Section 420 IPC is made out.

7. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that

the trial has commenced.

8. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that

the trial has not commenced.

9. Perused the record.

10. Admittedly, there was a dispute between the parties with

regard to the marriage proposals between A1 and the de facto

complainant and the marriage had not taken place for various

reasons. A perusal of the recitals in statements of witnesses and

the charge sheet goes to show that there is a marriage proposal

between A1 and the de facto complainant and since the dowry is

not sufficient, the petitioners have chosen to cancel the marriage

but the said aspect has not mentioned either in 161 Cr.P.C.

statement or in the charge sheet. At the same time, it is also

averred that a mediation was conducted between both the parties

but the settlement would not be arrived at. The efforts made by

the mediators have become futile exercise.

11. To attract the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. there should

be dishonest intention right from the beginning. Section 420 I.P.C.

reads as under:

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

12. Admittedly, a perusal of the entire charge sheet goes to

show that there are disputes between the parties and so the

marriage got cancelled. It further shows that A1 to A6 did not

respond properly to settle the issue before the elders and in view

of the same, a report was lodged by the de facto complainant at a

belated stage.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment

of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M.Giriprasad v.

K.Munikrishna Reddy 1 , wherein it was held that allegation of

promise made and thereafter letting down from a promise, would

not constitute an offence under Section 420 I.P.C.

14. In the present case, there were disputes between both the