IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.5036 OF 2010 Between:- Battangani Anirudh Gowtham …Petitioner A n d Rajaputha Tuljabai and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.5036 OF 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash further proceedings in C.C.No.232 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nuzuvid, Krishna District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the first respondent, though served with notice. Perused the records. 3. Based on the complaint of first respondent herein, the police registered F.I.R in Cr.No.52 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioner. After due investigation, the police filed charge sheet and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.232 of 2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nuzuvid. Initially, the petitioner/accused filed this criminal petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R in Cr.No.52 of 2007 and subsequently amended the prayer by filing Crl.P.M.P.No.4944 of 2010 seeking to quash further proceedings in C.C.No.232 of 2008. 4. According to the first respondent/complainant, she was studying MCA in Sarathi Engineering College and the accused was her classmate and that he used to visit her house at Nuzuvid now and then; that the accused claimed that his father was highly placed in ONGC at Bombay and promised to secure project work for the complainant in a reputed company at Mumbai using the good offices of his father and believing his words, the complainant gave Rs.70,000/- to the accused towards security deposit, which was to be paid to the company; that the parents of the complainant sent her along with the accused to Mumbai and the accused kept the complainant in his parents’ house at Mumbai. It is further alleged that the accused did not take any steps to provide project work for the complainant, but instead put forward a proposal to marry her, for which the complainant refused. The parents of the complainant wanted the accused to send the complainant back to Nuzuvid, but he accused took her to Tatanagar and Jamshedpur and then brought her to Nuzuvid and refused to return the money. It is further alleged that the accused took the signatures of the complainant as if her marriage was celebrated with the accused and threatened her with dire consequences if she demanded return of amount of Rs.70,000/- and thus cheated the complainant. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the de facto complainant had written love letters to the petitioner/accused and sent him greeting cards etc., and was also making telephone calls to him and she laid a trap on the accused with a view to marry him and that the complainant helped the petitioner monetarily giving an amount of Rs.70,000/- to pay his college fees and as the petitioner could not arrange the amount, the complainant made a proposal for marriage for which the petitioner expressed unwillingness and, therefore, the complainant filed a false complaint. 6 . As seen from the averments in the complainant and also the charge sheet, which was filed after due investigation, specific allegations have been made by the first respondent against the petitioner/accused alleging that he had taken Rs.70,000/- on the promise of securing project work in a company at Mumbai through his father, having taken the complainant to Bombay. He failed to keep up the promise and, on the other hand, proposed to marry the complainant, for which the complainant refused. It is further alleged that instead of sending the complainant back to Nuzivud, he had taken her to Tatanagar and Jamshedpur etc. The petitioner/accused, on the other hand, alleged that the complainant herself was in love with him and she paid the college fees for the petitioner and when he could not return the amount, she laid a trap with a view to marry him. The receipt of the amount of Rs.70,000/- by the petitioner/accused from the complainant and non- returning of the same to the complainant is thus admitted by him. 7. The question as to for what purpose and under what circumstances the money had to be paid by the complainant to the accused, is a matter to be considered only after necessary evidence is adduced at the time of trial. 8. Having regard to the serious nature of the allegations made in the complaint and charge sheet, it is considered not a fit case to thwart further proceedings in C.C.No.232 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nuzuvid, Krishna District by invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the truth or otherwise of the said allegations has to be adjudicated upon only on the basis of evidence that may be let in at the time of trial. It is well established principle of law that the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C have to be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection and cannot be invoked for the purpose of scuttling further proceedings of prosecution, especially when specific allegations have been made attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner/ accused. There are no valid or sufficient grounds to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.232 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nuzuvid, Krishna District. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 8th November, 2010 Lrkm.