Telangana High Court

Sri Rajapuram Jeevan Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 20 June, 2025

Author: N.Tukaramji

Bench: N.Tukaramji

          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

               CRIMINAL PETITION No.10798 OF 2024

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking

quashment of C.C.No.5967 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior

Civil Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri

District, at L.B. Nagar against the petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr. Shyam S. Agrawal, learned counsel

representing M.Satish Kumar Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr.Jithender Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

representing the respondent No.1-State.

3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the petitioner/accused

proposed marriage to the de facto complainant/respondent No. 2,

assuring her that he would secure his parents' consent and proceed

with the marriage. However, at a later stage, he reneged on his

promise and refused to marry her. This abrupt change allegedly

caused the complainant severe emotional distress, ultimately leading to

a suicide attempt. Consequently, the complainant lodged a police

complaint, alleging that the petitioner had deceived her. The complaint

was registered as Crime No. 591 of 2019 under Sections 417 and 420 2 NTR,J CRLP_10798_2024

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Following investigation, the

police filed a charge sheet.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even a plain

reading of the allegations in the police report, taken at face value, does

not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute offences

under Sections 417 and 420 IPC. He argues that, according to the

complainant's own version, the petitioner did nothing beyond making a

promise to marry her. There is no indication that he exploited her in a

manner that would fulfill the elements of the offences alleged. On this

basis, counsel submits that allowing the proceedings to continue would

constitute an abuse of the judicial process, and he therefore prays for

the quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 5967 of 2019.

In support of his arguments, counsel relies on precedent from

this Court and the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, namely:

(i) M. Giriprasad v. K. Munikrishna Reddy, 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 52 (AP);

(ii) Varthya Shanker and Others v. State of Telangana and Others,

2018 (2) ALD (Crl.) 622; (iii) Subbnarapu Prasanna Kumar and Others

v. State of A.P. and Others, 2019 (3) ALT (Crl.) 34 (AP); and

a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Chowdhari Donthineni

and Others v. The State of Karnataka and Others, 2022:KHC:6402.

3 NTR,J CRLP_10798_2024

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits

that the allegations in the police report have been corroborated by the

statements of the complainant and other witnesses during the

investigation. As a result, the investigating agency filed a charge sheet,

asserting that the facts disclose the commission of the offence of

cheating. He argues that the credibility and veracity of these allegations

are matters to be examined during trial, and thus, judicial interference

at this preliminary stage is unwarranted.

6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels and

perused the materials on record.

7. Upon perusal of the petitioner's statement, it emerges that the

petitioner and the de facto complainant were acquainted with each

other since their college days. In November 2016, the petitioner

allegedly proposed marriage to the complainant, assuring her that he

would obtain the consent of his parents and other family members.

However, citing his parents' disapproval, he later withdrew from the

commitment. Subsequently, in the presence of his friends, the

petitioner is said to have acknowledged his mistake and reaffirmed his

intention to marry her. Despite this, he once again reneged on his

promise. Further allegations suggest that the petitioner engaged in

coercive conduct by blackmailing the complainant to meet him,

implying emotional manipulation. On these grounds, the de facto 4 NTR,J CRLP_10798_2024

complainant alleged that she was deceived and, consequently, filed a

police complaint.

8. The offences invoked against the petitioner are under Sections

417 and 420 of the IPC. For clarity, the relevant provisions are

extracted below:

Section 417 IPC - Punishment for Cheating:

"Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description

for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."

Section 420 IPC - 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."

9. Thus, to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC, it is

essential to establish that the accused not only engaged in cheating

but also dishonestly induced the victim to deliver property or alter a

valuable security. In the context of the present case, even taking the

complainant's version at face value, the petitioner merely promised to

marry her and later retracted that promise, attributing his change of

position to the opinion of his parents and relatives. Importantly, the

complaint does not allege any act that evidences a fraudulent or 5 NTR,J CRLP_10798_2024

dishonest intention at the inception of the promise, nor is there any

indication that the petitioner induced the complainant to deliver

property or to act in a manner that she would not have otherwise done

but for such deception. As such, the foundational elements of cheating

under Section 415 IPC are not met.

10. This legal position has been examined in M. Giriprasad v. K.

Munikrishna Reddy, 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 52 (AP), where in paragraphs

4 and 5, the Court observed:

"The complaint does not indicate any inducement by the petitioners to

procure gold ornaments. It merely records that both parties had agreed to the

marriage of LW-3 Thulasi and A1, and an engagement was held. It is evident

that, based on the promise of marriage, the de facto complainant incurred

expenses anticipating a matrimonial alliance. Subsequently, A1 declined to

proceed with the marriage for undisclosed reasons.

The Court held that a breach of a promise to marry, in itself, does not attract

the offence under Section 420 IPC. The mere receipt of gold ornaments in

the context of a planned engagement does not constitute criminal breach of

trust. Any expenditure incurred on the strength of a matrimonial promise

could potentially give rise to a civil claim for damages, but does not amount to

a criminal offence. Accordingly, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings."

11. In similar terms, the other authorities cited by the petitioner have

considered the applicability of cheating offences in cases involving

unfulfilled promises of marriage, ultimately concluding that such 6 NTR,J CRLP_10798_2024

allegations do not meet the statutory threshold for criminal prosecution

under Sections 417 and 420 IPC.

12. In light of the foregoing, the present case stands on identical

legal footing. The allegations, as presented, do not make out a prima

facie case against the petitioner under the aforesaid penal provisions.

Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an

abuse of the process of law and warrants judicial intervention.

13. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, this Criminal

Petition is found to be meritorious and is accordingly allowed. As a