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
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
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,
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
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
Criminal Appeal No.577 of 2024
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
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
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
