THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10337 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2/A1 and A2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 416, 419, 420, 500/34 I.P.C. Private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the Magistrate was referred to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. A2 is husband of A1. Swetha is daughter of A1. The 2nd respondent’s son, Laxmikanth married Swetha on 02.07.2007. Subsequently, there were disputes between the couple and they landed before the marital Court for divorce. The 2nd respondent’s son filed petition for divorce. A1’s daughter filed case against the 2nd respondent and his family members, including his son alleging offences under Section 498-A I.P.C. etc. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed this private complaint before the Magistrate alleging the above offences. It is alleged that it was represented as if A2 is husband of A1 and Swetha is daughter of A1 and A2 and A2 also belongs to the same community and that on those representations, the marriage between Swetha and Laxmikanth was performed and that subsequently, it transpired that A2 is not father of Swetha and A2 does not belong to the caste of A1 and the 2nd respondent and that the said misrepresentations constituted the above offences. There is no element of defamation pleaded by the 2nd respondent in this case. Therefore, no case under Section 500 I.P.C. is made out herein. Further, even as per allegations in the private complaint, there is no element of any dishonest intention in respect of any property or valuable security. Hence, Section 420 I.P.C. is totally inapplicable herein. The offence of cheating by impersonation defined under Section 416 I.P.C. is punishable under Section 419 I.P.C. In order to constitute the offence of cheating by impersonation, the accused must pretend himself to be some other person or substitute one person for the other or represent that he or any other person other than he or such other person really is. In this case, neither A1 nor A2 represented A2 as any other person. A2 was introduced to the 2nd respondent as A2 only. It is alleged that A2 was represented to be father of Swetha. A2 being husband of A1, becomes step-father of Swetha. It is not the 2nd respondent’s case that A2 was represented to be natural father of Swetha. It is contended by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that because of the said false representation by A1 and A2, the 2nd respondent’s reputation in the society is affected. Even from allegations in the private complaint, A1 obtained exparte divorce on 29.10.2007 by showing wrong address of her original husband, Subbarayudu in H.M.O.P. No.30 of 2005 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. The 2nd respondent being a third party to H.M.O.P. No.30 of 2005, cannot be allowed to question the divorce granted by the Court between A1 and her husband Subbarayudu. Viewed from any angle, allegations in the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent do not disclose the offences for which the case was registered by the Police. I have no doubt in my mind that the present case is nothing but counter blast to dowry harassment case filed by Swetha. 2. Hence, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing FIR in Crime No.162 of 2009 of Atmakur Police Station of Kurnool District. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:02.11.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.10337 of 2009 Dt:02.11.2011 ysk