IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5730 of 2007 Between: P.A.G.H.S. Srinivas And others …Petitioners AND State rep by the P.P. High Court of A.P. And another …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5730 of 2007 ORDER: Heard the counsel. The petitioners herein / Accused Nos.1 to 3 ﬁled the present Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stating that the ingredients of Section 418 read with Section 34 IPC are not satisﬁed and hence, proceedings against them in C.C.No.208 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Srikakulam, be quashed. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder. Complainant is a permanent resident of Srikakulam and an employee of Grameena Bank. His wife’s younger sister (P.W.1) is a Post Gradate in M.Sc., (Tech) from Andrha University, Visakhapatnam (1999- 2000). Later she worked as lecturer in Physics at Junior College at Kothakota and AMAL college of Anakapalli in Visakhapatnam District. Afterwards, she was appointed as Project Assistant Grade II in National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI) at Hyderabad and also doing Ph.D. She is staying in Hyderabad in the Hostel of the Institute. As she is of marriageable age, the complainant and his wife have been trying for a suitable matrimonial alliance as her parents are aged and are living at Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam District and they have no sons or other able relations to look after welfare of P.W.1 to try for alliances to her. While so, one Smt. Chatti Laxmi (L.W.9), a distant relation of the complainant’s family suggested an alliance with Mr.Produturi Hara Gopala Krishna (A-2) who is working as Team Leader in “Accenture Pvt. Ltd.”, a software company in Hyderabad and earning Rs.50,000/- per month. He is the youngest son of his parents while elder brother Sri P.A.G.H.S. Srinivas (A-1) is a B.Ed, Teacher working in a Government High School and residing at Vizianagaram. After this alliance was suggested by L.W.9, the complainant contacted the ﬁrst accused by phone. Horoscopes, Bio data and photo of bride (L.W.1) and Bridegroom (A-2) were exchanged between the parties. The ﬁrst accused, as elder brother of the bridegroom, took up the entire responsibility of process of the proposed marriage. As the bride is working at Hyderabad and the Bridegroom is also working at Hyderabad and living with his parents, at the request of A-1, a get-together was ﬁxed in the bride’s Hostel on 21.01.2007 and the complainant, his wife and mother-in-law went to Hyderabad and participated in the get-together. On the side of the bridegroom, the bridegroom, his parents and his married sister Smt K.Gouri have participated. Afterwards, the complainant returned to Srikakulam along with family. On 22.01.2007 and 23.01.2007, the ﬁrst accused and the complainant conveyed their respective consents on behalf of the bridegroom and Bride. First accused even went to the extent of getting a Lagna Patrika from Simha Batla Jyothishyam, Vizianagaram and ﬁxed the marriage on 24.02.2007. When it was informed over phone, the complainant conveyed his view that unless the terms of marriage are not ﬁnalized, it is not proper to ﬁx the marriage date. Thereupon A-1 ﬁxed 31.01.2007 as the date for negotiations at his residence at Vizianagaram, for which, the complainant, his wife and the Bride’s father, complainant’s cousin Sri G.Jagannadha Rao and his wife Smt. Valli attended. On Bridegroom’s side, A-1, his wife and another married sister with her husband attended. On that day it was agreed that a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards Lanchanams will be paid. Though they are legally bound under the contract of the marriage and obliged to protect the terms and thus they committed the oﬀence punishable under Section 418 read with Section 34 IPC. The details in the complaint had also been narrated. It is stated that on perusal of the above complaints, it is crystal clear that the allegations made in the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an oﬀence or make out a case against the accused; that mere breach of contract does not constitute an oﬀence of cheating unless it is established that the accused entertained fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise; that therefore, in the absence of any allegation in the complaint that at the very inception that there was any intention on behalf of the accused to cheat, the complaint should not have been entertained; that mere use of words cheating in the complaint is not enough, the substance of the complaint has to be seen. It is also stated that in the instant case, the bride, who is L.W.1, categorically stated in her above complaint that his maternal uncle namely Rachuri Sridhar (A-4) and his wife Padma (A-5) have become sole cause for failure of her marriage; that while that being the case, it is totally ridiculous to make a complaint against the petitioners under Section 418 IPC; that as a matter of fact, it is their duty to provide all necessary facts before the petitioners so as to avoid any future problems; that the bride is facing harassment and being suﬀered at the hands of her maternal uncle (A-4) for the last three years i.e. prior to her engagement with A-2 herein; that she deliberately avoided the same to inform anybody and she did not even care to make a complaint either before the elders or any other forum. It is further stated that the ingredients of Section 418 IPC are not at all satisﬁed; that one of the essential ingredients of the oﬀence of cheating and guilty intent at the time of making promise is an essential requirement; that subsequent failure to fulﬁll the promise by itself would not attract the oﬀence; that in the instant case there is no knowledge or intention on the part of the petitioner / accused No.2 at any stage of the transaction to deceive the bride (L.W.1); that it is only on account of controversy and disputes in between bride and her maternal uncle namely Rachuri Sridhar (A-4) and his wife Padma (A-5) that led to this failure of engagement; that there is a saying that the marriage is for 100 years of ties and when controversies surrounded at the stage of engagement itself, that too on account of their own relations, it is better to break up the same rather than suffering for life time. Further it is also stated that when the reason for failure is engagement clearly mentioned by bride herself, it is totally unfair and there is no justiﬁcation on part of the complainant to attribute malaﬁdes without there being any legal evidence to that eﬀect; that therefore, the allegations made in the complainant are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which, no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is a suﬃcient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is further stated that the bride categorically stated that her maternal uncle Rachuri Sridhar (A-4) made a proposal to marry her; that there appears to be some disputes in between bride and her maternal uncle and he is taking advantage of the same and bent upon harassing the bride with ulterior motives; that it is for their family to sort out the same and take action against these persons namely Rachuri Sridhar (A-4) and his wife Padma (A-5); that instead of taking action against their maternal uncle and relatives, the complainant, being driven by frustration, made this false complainant which is manifestly attended with malaﬁde for wrecking vengeance with a view to spite the bridegroom party due to private and personal grudge; that therefore, the continuation of the proceedings on the ﬁle of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Srikakulam is nothing but purely an abuse process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. This Court had carefully gone through the material placed on record. On a careful reading of the allegations made in the complaint, this Court is of considered opinion that these are all factual controversies, which cannot be gone into by this Court, especially while dealing with petitions ﬁled under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all these grounds at appropriate stage. ____________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J March 17, 2010 Bvv