IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.1984 OF 2007. Date:08.02.2010 Between:- Siripuram Narasaiah and others ..Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER:- This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 (A1 and A3 to A6) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing F.I.R. in Crime No.179 of 2007 of Saroor Nagar Police Station relating to offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C. 2. On report given by the 2nd respondent, Saroor Nagar police registered this crime. It is alleged that one Naveen who is son of A1 was engaged to her for marriage and that engagement ceremony was held on 02.10.2006 at her mother’s house and that during that occasion, they paid Rs.4,00,000/- towards advance dowry and that Naveen was having intimacy with another girl and that he agreed for alliance with the defacto complainant and for engagement as he wanted money to go to U.S.A. and that he went away to U.S.A. after receiving Rs.4,00,000/- and thereafter, the accused informed about cancellation of the alliance and that elders have decided that the accused have to pay back Rs.7,00,000/- which amount included expenses of Rs.3,00,000/- and that documents were executed in that regard agreeing payment of the said amount by 10.12.2006 and that the accused did not pay back the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- by 10.12.2006 and that again, the elders assembled both the parties and that the accused gave demand draft for Rs.1,00,000/- and kept some more amount on table and threatened the persons with deadly weapons and obtained signatures of the persons on some papers and went away taking the papers as well as cash. The said incident is stated to have been taken place on 13.12.2006. It is further stated in the report that when persons called emergency cell of the police by dialing 100, two constables came in Rakshak vehicle and by that time, the accused went away and that immediately, report was given in Saroor Nagar Police Station. The present report was given to the police by the defacto complainant on 15.02.2007. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that report was given after two months of the incident to the police without there being any truth in it. It may be noted that the report reads that immediately after the incident, information was furnished to the police through phone and after receiving the said information, the police came to the scene in Rakshak vehicle. It is also further stated in the report that immediately report was given in Saroor Nagar Police Station. It is not known what happened to the report given by the defacto complainant immediately after the offence. It is a matter which has to be investigated by the police. 3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the defacto complainant’s counsel got issued notice on 06.12.2006 to A1 to the effect that the accused voluntarily signed agreement of engagement cancellation and the said agreement was drafted and written by an Advocate. Even though the said notice was purported to have been given on instructions of defacto complainant, it does not contain signatures of the defacto complainant. In any event, there is no dispute about agreement for cancellation of engagement. The dispute is only with regard to obtaining signatures on some papers by showing deadly weapons and in a forcible manner on 13.12.2006. The said notice was given one week prior to the date of offence. So that notice has no relevancy in the present offence. As the matter now stands, there are absolutely no grounds in law for quashing F.I.R. in this crime. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 8th February 2010 AMD