Telangana High Court
M.Aruna Venkat Prasad Another vs State Of Telangana Another on 1 November, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
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
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
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."
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
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.
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
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4515 of 2017
Date: 01.11.2022.
kvs
