Section 482 Cr.P.C.- Section 417 IPC. = At the time of betrothal ceremony, these petitioners were not present. It seems they were present when the defacto complainant went to the house of A.1 to A.3 for the purpose of discussing about arrangements to be made for performing the marriage. Except their presence at that time, these petitioners neither induced the defacto complainant to deliver any property or valuable security nor caused any wrongful loss to the defacto complainant. Their mere presence at the time of discussion for marriage arrangements, by itself, does not lead to draw a conclusion that they committed the offence of cheating. Even if the allegations in the charge sheet are taken as true and correct, at this stage, they do not disclose commission of the offence under Section 417 IPC. Hence, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court.

CRLP 849 / 2013

CRLPSR 3004 / 2013

PETITIONER RESPONDENT SYED ZAHEER PASHA & 2 OTHERS   VS THE STATE OF AP., & ANOTHER PET.ADV. : PANI KUMAR RESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SUBJECT: U/s.482 Cr.p.c Other offences not covered(Misc.) DISTRICT:  KHAMMAM

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

 

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 849 of 2013

 

O R D E R:

         These Criminal Petitions are filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.86 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu.

2.      The second respondent lodged a private complaint before the court below against the petitioners and others for the offence under Section 420 IPC.   The complaint was referred for investigation to police, who registered a case in crime no.81 of 2011 of Garlabavvaram police station, and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC.  

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioners/A.4 to A.6 contended that except presence of the petitioners at the time of engagement, no specific overt-acts are attributed against them with regard to the alleged cheating; that specific allegations are leveled against A.1 to A.3 only; that there is no dishonest or fraudulent inducement by the petitioners to deliver property, and therefore, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of court.

4.      Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-State contended that a prima facie case is made out from the allegations in the charge sheet, and so, there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings.

5.      Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to the order passed under the Code.  

 There cannot be any dispute that if the allegations in the charge sheet and the statements of witnesses recorded by police during the course of investigation do not make out aprima facie case for the offence alleged, then only the question of quashing the proceedings would arise.

6.      Section 417 IPC prescribes punishment for cheating.  Necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating which is defined under Section 415 IPC are thus:         

“(1) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him,

(2) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or

(b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and

(3) in cases covered by (2)(b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.

7.      The allegation is that the complainant proposed to give his daughter in marriage to A.2, who is son of A.1 and A.3; as demanded by A.1 to A.3, the complainant agreed to give Rs.15.00 lakhs in cash towards dowry and gold ornaments and two wheeler, apart from household articles;  that at the time of betrothal ceremony, an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs was given to A.2 besides presenting a gold ring; that on 6.10.2011, when the defacto complainant along with other witnesses went to the house of A.1 to discuss about arrangements with regard to marriage, A.1 informed them that his son got offer at abroad and was leaving to U.S.A. and therefore it was not possible to celebrate his marriage with daughter of the defacto complainant; that A.1, on the instigation of A.3 to A.6, had bluntly refused to perform the marriage.   

8.      Even if the entire allegations in the charge sheet are taken as true and correct, at this stage, they do not constitute a prima facie offence of cheating against the petitioners/A.4 to A.6.  

At the time of betrothal ceremony, these petitioners were not present.  It seems they were present when the defacto complainant went to the house of A.1 to A.3 for the purpose of discussing about arrangements to be made for performing the marriage.  Except their presence at that time, these petitioners neither induced the defacto complainant to deliver any property or valuable security nor caused any wrongful loss to the defacto complainant.  Their mere presence at the time of discussion for marriage arrangements, by itself, does not lead to draw a conclusion that they committed the offence of cheating.  Even if the allegations in the charge sheet are taken as true and correct, at this stage, they do not disclose commission of the offence under Section 417 IPC.  Hence, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court.

9.      The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, allowed, quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.86 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu.  Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed.   

_______________

K.C.BHANU, J

6.2.2013

DRK

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 849 of 2013

6.2.2013