The High Court · 2025

2. Ms. Karakalla Padmini Reddy, D/o. Sri Vittal Reddy, aged about 28 years Occ: Student, R/o. 9-63/1/F, Laxminagar colony Boduppal, Medipally, Hyderabad - 500 039. ...RespondenUDefacto Gomplainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order quashing the proceedings in the case in C.C.No.5967 oI 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri district, at L.B. Nagar, including appearance of the petitioner/accused - l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order staying all further proceedings in the case in C.C.No.5967 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri district, at L.B. Nagar, including appearance of the petitioner / accused, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition, in the interest of justice. Thls Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Shyam S. Agrawal, counsel representing Sri M. Satish Kumar Varma, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Mr. Jithender Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.10798 OF 2024 ORDER Th s ()-irrinal Petition is filed under Section 528 ol t:lharatiya Nagarik liura<sra Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2C,23,) seeking quashmerrt of ,1.C.No.5967 of 2019 on the file of the prrncip;tl Junior Civil Judge-cunr.Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, fuledc na l-lr,ilalkajgiri District, at 1,. Ei. l,,lagar against the petitioner.

2. I trav,: heard Mr. Shyam S, Agrawal, learned counsel representin<1 \1 Siatish Kumar Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jith:-.nler Veeramalla, learned Additional public prc,secutor, representingi tire: respondent No.'1-State.

3. Ther grrc,s ercution's case, in brief, is that the petitic,ner/accused proposed nrarr age to the de facto complainanUrespondent No.2, assuring l- e :h I I he would secure his parents, consent and 1:roceed with the tnelrr € ge. However, at a later stage, he renerged on his promise anrl rl'used to marry her. This abrupt change e llegedly caused the co'."tllainant severe emotional distress, ultirnately leading to a suicide a-te-ttpt. Consequently, the complainant ,odged :r poltce complaint, alle(,rng that the petitioner had deceived her. Tl-re complaint was registerecl :rs; Crime No. 59 1 of 2019 under Sections a17 t:nd 420 2 NTR,] CRLP 10798 2024 \ of the lndian Penal Code, 1S60 (lPC) 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 underSections4lTand42OlPC.Hearguesthat,accordingtothe 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 mannerthatwouldfulfilltheelementsoftheoffencesalleged'onthis basis, counsel submits that allowing the proceedings to continue would constitute an abuse of the ,iudicial process, and he therefore prays for the quashing of the proceedings in C'C No 5967 of 2019' ln support of his arguments, counsel relies on precedent from thisCourtandtheerstwhileHighCourtofAndhraPradesh,namely. (l) M. Giiprasad v- K- Munikrishna Reddy'2014 (2) ALD (Crl ) 52 (AP)' (lI) Varlhya Shanker and Others v' Sfafe of Telangana and Others' 2O1B (2) ALD (Crl.) 622; (iii) Subbnarapu Prasanna Kumar and Others v. Slate 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 ' t J NTR,I cRLr 10798 2024

5. Per ( orrtr;r, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the alle,:;a:irns in the police report have been corrobcratel by the statements cf :he complainant and other witnesses duttng the investigatior lrr; a result, the investigating agency filecl a charg e sheet, asserting tha" i e facts disclose the commission of the ofl -.nce of cheating. lle a'1;ues that the credibility and veracity of thes: all,rgations are matters to Lre examined during trial, and thus, judicial interference at this prelin'inrr/ stage is unwarranted.

6. I havr,; cc nsidered the submissions of the learned counr;,els and perused the nulerrials on record

7. Upon p,1;1 115s1 of the petitioner's statement, it emerges that the petitioner arrd the de facto complainant were acquainte,l wi1.h each other since tl-rerir college days. ln November 2016, the pr:titioner allegedly prropo:;ed marriage to the complainant, assuring her that he would obtairr the consent of his parents and other tamily m,,rmbers. However, crtrnr; ris parents' disapproval, he later withdrew f.om the commitmelt .Subsequently, in the presence of his trienls, the petitioner is lzr c to have acknowledged his mistake and re'affirned his intention to Trrirry her. Despite this, he once again reneged on his promise. [:u ther allegations suggest that the petitioner engr:rged in coercive c;ord uct by blackmailing the complainant to mei:t him, implying emotic nal manipulation. On these grounds, tl-,e d,: facto 4 NTR, ] CRLP 10794 2024 complainant alleged that she was deceived and' consequently' f'led a police comPlaint o The offences invoked against the petitioner are under Sections .4lTand42OoflhelPC.Forclarity,therelevantprovisionsare extracted below Punishment for Section 417 IPC - 'Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either descrrption for a term whrch may extend to one year, or with fine' or with both'" Section 420 IPC - Cheating and Dishonestly lnducing Delivery of Cheating: 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 anythlng 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 buta|sodishonestlyinducedtheVictimtodeliverpropertyoraltera valuable security. ln the context of the present case' even taking the complainant's version at face value, the petitioner merety promised to marry her and later retracted that promise' attributing his change of position to the opinion of his parents and relatives lnrportantly' the complaint does not allege any act that evidences a fraudulent or ( (. 5 NTR,J crlr F 10798 2024 dishonest int€n1i()n at the inception of the promise, ror s th,-'re any indication thet the petitioner induced the compla'nanl to deliver property o. t: irrl in a manner that she would not have otherwi:;e done but for such decerption. As such, the foundational elements of r.,heating under Secr:icn .1'l 5 IPC are not met. 1 0. This; ere I position has been examined in M. Giritrtrasitd v. K. Munikishra Fl,t1Cy, 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 52 (AP), where in paragraphs 4 and 5, the Cottrt observed: "Th€ ( orlr laint does not indicate any inducement by the petit oners to procJre q,)ld ornaments. lt merely records that both partres had agr(ied to the marflale ,)r W-3 Thulasi and A'1, and an engagement was held. lt s evtdent that, birs€ c ln the promise of marriage, the de facto c,lmplainan incurred expenses :rftrcipating a matrimonial alliance. Subsequently, ,\1 d(:clined to procLre L(,ril' the marriage for undisclosed reasons. The C( ul rold that a breach of a promise to marry, in itself does not attract the offcnc€ .rnder Section 420 lPC. The mere receipt o= golc ornaments in the (rort€)(t of a planned engagement does not constitute crinrinal .)reach of trust Lnv ?(penditure incurred on the strength of a nratriftron a promise coul(i pcl€ r trally give rise to a civil claim for damages, but does nol amount to a crirriral cftence. Accordingly, the Court quashed the criminal proct:edings."

11. ln srmrlirr t,:rms, the other authorities cited by the pe:itioner have considered the applicability of cheating offences in casr:s irrvolving unfulfilled p.crnisies of marriage, ultimately concluding thzrt such I I 6 NTR, ] CRLP 10798 2024 allegations do not meet the statutory threshold for criminal prosecution under Sections 417 and 420 IPC

12. ln 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. ln view of the foregoing discussion and findings, this Criminal Petition is found to be meritorious and is accordingly allowed' As a consequence, the proceedings against the petitioner in C'C' No' 5967 oI 2019, pending on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at L.B. Nagar, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand clos ed //TRUE COPY// SD'- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REG TRAR SECTI OFFICER to'',. \ ,n" Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Medchal-Malkalgiri district' at L B Nagar'

2. The Station Hor." ofiitl', fileAipafly Police Station' Rachakonda Digtrict' 3. Two CCs to the proii" piot""'ior' High Court for the State of Telangana at + Oil" CC to iri M. Satish Kumar Varma' Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad. [OUT] 1 Kam/gh HIGH COIJRT DATED:20 t(tit2021 ORDER CRLP.No.10;/98 of 2024 ,/ t'.-' /.: 4 ALLOWNG THE CRIMINAL PETITION il bleK , ?F_ sI t/( ((, 2 ;' ..ttlrv 6g 2 f+ .a .16, '\.: it, 1 r 1f-O -:=t a