The High Court · 2025

2. Ms. G Sandhya Rani, D/o G. Siddhu, aged 22 yeats, Occ Student, R/o' 8-3- 228t714tA, Rihmatyh Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad -45 ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to QUASH the CC No. 11342 ot 2021 on the file of the XVll Addl' Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Hyderabad District. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings the cc No. 11342 of 2021 0n the file of the XVll Addl. chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Hyderabad District pending disposal of the above criminal petition. I / This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri p. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner, Mrs. Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI - CRIMINAL PETITION No.974 of 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 ot Cr-P-C. by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedirtgs against him in C.C.No.1 1342 of 2021 on the file of the XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad (for short'trial Court')' pertaining to Crime No.446 of 2021 of P.S. Jubilee Hills, registered for the offences under Sections 406,417 and 420 of the lndian Penal Code (for short'lPC').

2. Heard Sri P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. S.lr4adhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner-accused is the paternal aunt's son of de facto complainant. ln the year 2012'the petitioner went to U.S. to pursue his education. Since 2018, the petitioner and the de facto complainant are chatting over phone. The petitioner- accused proposed lhe de facto complainant and said that he will marry her, due to which, lhe de facto complainant has rejected all the matches. On returning to lndia in April, 2021 ,lhe petitioner informed lhe de facto J 2 JS, J Crl.P.No.974 of 2022 complainant that his parents are against their marriage, but he wiil convince them and asked her to wait. Thereafter, the de facto complainant came to know that the petitioner-accused is ready to marry another woman. When the de facto complainant and her family members questioned him, the petitioner-accused refused to marry her. Basing on the said complaint, a case in crime No.446 of 2021 was registered against the petitioner-accused and after compretion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the trial court. The same was taken cognizance and numbered as c.c.No. 11342 of 2o2r for the aforesaid offences.

4. Learned senior counser for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. since the petitioner is in good profession and earning a handsome salary, the de facto comprainant deveroped rove towards him and started asking him to marry her. However, as the petitioner-accused did not pay any attention to her demands, the present complaint was foisted against him by lhe de facto comprainant, with an intention to hinder his job and blackmail to marry her. He further submits that there is no such relationship between the petitioner and the de facto comprainant as alleged in the complaint, hence, the question of petitioner defrauding the de facto complainant does not arise. Even assuming that if the allegations of love affair and the promise made by the petitioner to marry a \ \ I I 3 JS, J Crl-P.No.g74 of 2022 I the de facto complainant are true, still, the same would not make out the offences alleged, as the mere promise of marriage would not amount to cheating by any stretch, since there is no allegation of either taking advantage of the de faclo complainant or her modesty, taking money and anything valuable. He further submits that the petitioner has a right to select his life partner. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner and the ingredients of the offences alleged against him are not made out. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition

6. For the sake of convenience, Sections 406, 417 and 420 IPC is extracted hereunder:

406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.- Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. J 4 JS, J Crl-P.No.974 of 2022

417. Punishment for cheating.- Whoever cheats shatt be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

420. Cheating and dishones y inducing detivery of propefty._ Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestty induces the person deceived to deliver any propefiy 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 convened into a valuable security, shalt be punished with impisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seve!1 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

7. ln the judgment of Sfafe of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and othersl , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: ...The following categories of cases can be stated tty way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Afticle 226 or the inherent powers under Section 4g2 Cr.p.C. can be exercised by the High Couft either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otheMise to secure the ends of justice, though it may n_ot be poss/b/e to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflex'ibie gLtidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the allegations made in the First ltlformation Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2.). Wherg the allegations in the First lnformation Report and other ntalerials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do nof disc/ose a.-cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers inder an order of a Magistrate within the puNiew of Section 1SS(2) of the Code; -under Section 156(1) of the Code -except (3) Where the uncontrovefted allegations made in the FtR or complaint and the evidence collected in suppotl of the saie Ao ' uez sci lcriy +to 1 I I 5 JS, J Crl.P.No.974 ot 2022 case against the accused; (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basls of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved pafty; (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

8. ln the judgment of Raju Krishna Shedbalkar v. State of Karnataka and anothel, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.8 and 11, held as follows: "8. ln the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168, this Couft held as under: "15. ln determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. lt depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention ls shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To llold a person guiltv of cheatinq rt ls necessary to show that he '? 2024 SCC OnLine SC 200 6 JS, J Crl.P.No.974 of 2022 had fra udLtlent or dishon intent promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a cutpable intention ight at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed.', at the time of rnakino (Emphasis supplied)

11. We do not see how an offence even under Sectiotl 417 of IPC is made out against the present appeilant. There can be multiple reasons for initiating a marriage proposat and then the proposal not reaching the desired end. tt may in a given case involve cheating; rt r's possrb/e theoretica y yet in order to prove an offence of cheating ,/, such cases prosecution must have reliable and trustwotthy 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 a ow the appea! and set aside the order of the Trial Couri to the extent it has refrained from quashing the proceedings under Section 417 lpc against the present appellant. The petition succeeds, the appeal is allowed, to the extent stated above_"

9. As seen from the record, the ailegation against the petitioner is that he promised to marry the de facto complainant and thereafter, he cheated her by denying to marry her. For the offence of cheating, the existence of a fraudulent or dishonest intention of making initial promise or existence thereof from the very inception is a condition precedent. Mere breach of promise at a rater point of time cannot be said to be a false promise to attract the offence of cheating. Except the aflegation of the petitioner and the de facto complainant chatting with each other and he promised to marry her, prima facie, the allegations in the complaint, FIR or the charge sheet do not discrose that the petitioner has made a promise to the de facfo comprainant in a bad faith and with an intention to deceive her, from the inception. [Vroreover, there is no ailegation against 7 JS, J Crl.P.No.974 of 2022 the petitioner of either taking advantage of the de facto comprainant or her modesty, taking money and anything valuable. ln the said circumstances and in view of the raw laid down by the Hon'bre Supreme court in the judgments referred to above, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abusb of process of the law, and hence, the same are liable to be quashed.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in c.c.No.1 1342 of 2021 on the file of the XVll Additional Chief tr/etropolitan tvlagistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- L LAKSHMI BABU SI TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One Fair C opyto the Hon'bte SMT JUSTTCE JUWADT SRIDEVI (For Her Lordship,s kind perusal) . The XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Hyderabad District . 11 LR Copies Th-e. Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi The S-ecretary, Telangana High Court Advocate,s Association Library, High " Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad. The S-tation House Officer, Jubilee Hills police StatiJn, Hyderabad Two CCs to the Public prosecutor, High Court for the dtate of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI One CC to Sri P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy Advocate [OpUC] - To, 1 2 J 4 5 6

7. 8. VH/DL Two CD Copiesw HIGH COURT DATED: 1310312025 I I ORDER r-r f S Ll / c I 1 I tPIt 2025 \ 2 t) CRLP.No.974 of 2022 .,, ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION @ 10 1 pr