The Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad. 2 Gundala Shruthi, D/o G. Venkateshwar Rao Aged about. 34 Yrs, Occ. Private Employee R:/o Flat No.D805, Vertex Sadguru Krupa Apartment, K.P.H.B. Colony, Hyderabad ...RespondenUComplainant Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating C.C.No.2773 ot 2021 on the file of ll Additional Judicial Civil Judge-Cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad and consequently quash the same against the petitioner/Accused. l.A. NO: 1OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the ltlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner/Accused c.c.No.2773 of 2021 on the file of ll Additional Judicial Civil Judge-Cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad pending disposal of the quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y. Bala Murali, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri E.Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.S1O6 0F 2oi2t ORDER : This Criminal petition is hled seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.2773 of 2O2l pending on the frle of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Kukatpally, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 4I7 and 42O of IpC, arising out of Crime No.31g of 2O2I, dated 16.O4.2021 registered by p.S, K.P.H.B, Medchal District.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant lodged a complaint with the police Station, K.P.H.B., Medchat District, stating that in January 2020, she carne across a profile under the narne "praveen" on Telugu Matrimony. The said person expressed interest in her, and they began chatting. Subsequenfly, ttley exchanged photographs. However, when the complainant intended Page 2 of9 toshowhisprofiIetoherparents,heblockedheron Telugu Matrimony, although he continued to remain in contact with her via phone calls' He claimed to be divorced and assured her that he would marry her after returning to India from Dubai' However' when they met at Absolute BBQ Hotel' Madhapur' she was shocked to find that his appearance was entirely different from the photographs he had previously sent her via WhatsApp' She also discovered that he had not obtained a divorce from his wife, contrary to his earlier claims' Feeling cheated, the 2nd respondent requested that appropriate legal action be taken against him' 3. Based on the said comPlaint, L'W'6 registered a 318 l2}2l under Sections 417 and case in Crime No' 42O ofIPC and entrusted the investigation to L'W'7'

4. During the course of investigation, L'W'7 recorded a detailed statement of the 2nd respondent in Part-II of the Case Diary' He also recorded the statements of two mediators,L.Ws.4and5,andwitnessesL.Ws.2and3. Page 3 of9 Thereafter, he hled a charge sheet in C.C. No. 2ZT3 of 2O2l before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge_cum_X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpatly, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 42O of the IPC.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistarrt Pr.rblic Prosecutor for the respondent/ State.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the said crime, and there are no independent witnesses to support the prosecution's case, except for interested witnesses. He further contends that the statements recorded by the respondent/police, i.e., L.Ws. I to 6, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in Part-II of the Case Diary, do not substaltiate the allegations made by the prosecution.

7. Firstly, it is submitted that the de facto complainanty'2nd respondent is already a married wom€ul, living separately from her husband, and has two children. The \paid marriage is still subsisting, as stated in the \" Page 4 of9 respondent comPlalnt' It is further argued that although the 2nd clarms to have applied for divorce' no documentary proof has been submitted before the trial Court to that effect' The respondent/ police also failed to collect or mention any such particulars in the charge sheet' 8. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is also a married person' and his marriage was subsisting at the time of contact with the de facto complainant' Therefore' in the absence of any divorce obtained by the petitioner, aly talk or proposal of marriage by the de facto complainant is untenable. Moreover' the allegation that the petitioner sent a different photograph via WhatsApp is unsupported' as the respondent/ police failed to collect any material evidence or examine any witness to establish this claim' No evidence has been liled during the investigation to substantiate the or decePtion through WhatsAPP allegation of imPersonation photograPhs' Under these circumstalces, subjecting the petitioner to the tribulations of trial would amount to abuse of the Process of law and result in unnecessary Page 5 of9 wastage of the valuable time of the trial Court, besides causlng mental agony to the petitioner

9. Opposing the said submissions, the learned Assistant Public prosecutor for the State submits that the truth can be brought out only after conducting a full_fledged triai. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner uploaded a photograph on Telugr-r Matrimony by impersonating another person, as he used someone else,s photograph in his WhatsApp profile with the intent to deceive the de facto complainarrt. 10. Upon discovering the said misrepresentation, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint, and after due investigation and of witnesses, the examrnation respondent/police filed a charge sheet The learned Assistant Public prosecutor contends that the indulgence of this Court, at this premature stage, rs not warralted and therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.

11. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that trial proceedings have not yet commenced before the learned Trial Court. Page 6 of9 \

12. During the course of hearing, it is noticed that in spite ofserviceofnoticeonthe2"drespondent'thereisno appea-rance on behalf of the 2"a respondent' In that regard' a memo vide USR No.489OB of 2O2l has been filed by the counsel for the petitioner on 24'O8'2O21'

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner' the learnedAssistantPublicProsecutor,arrduponperusalofthe material placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the complaint filed by the de facto complainant' stating that she intended to marry the petitioner after connecting with him through Telugu Matrimony, cannot be accepted at face value, especially in light of her own admission in the complaint that her hrst marriage is still subsisting'

14. The respondent/police failed to collect any substantive material to frame charges against the petitioner' In particular, no witnesses from the matrimonial website have been examined to substantiate the allegations' In the independent evidence absence of anY cogent material or against the petitioner, the continuance of criminal - 1 { proceedings would amount to ax abuse of the process of law and result in unnecessary wastage of the precious time of the tria-l Court.

15. The Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others (1992 AIR 604), had enunciated the principles for use of the extraordinaqr power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein it is held as follows: "(7) u-there a criminol proceedirLg is manifestly attended uith .matalid." ""iiZ, where the proceeding is maliciouity instituted taiti an utteior motiue for utreaking u.engeance on the accused and. with a uiew to spite him due ti inuate and -- r' personal knotuledge." - I 6. The present case falls within Guideline No.7 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would serve no useful purpose.

17. In view of above discussion, the proceedings agajnst the petitioner in C.C.No.2ZZ3 of 2021 pending on the frle of II Additional Junior Civil Judge_cum_X Additional 1 Page 8 of9 MetroPolitan Magistrate' at KukatPallY, CYberabad' herebY quashed' 18. Accordingly, this Crimina'l Petition is allowed' As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any' pending' shall stand closed. SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional Judicial Civil Judge-Cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad 2. The Station House Officer, KPHB Police Station, Cyberabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to Sri Y.Bala Murali, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] NVB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:04108t202s 1t{E S14 16 .< i:) i.l 1t tlJB il6 (r I * D6. . --,,r' ORDER CRLP.No.510G ot 2021 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION g ,/A 4 ./', ,/14