HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3584 OF 2008 Dated 25-03-2011 Between: Posiemreddy Sravani and 2 others. ……..Petitioners And: The State, rep. by its PP., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another ………Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3584 OF 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.90 of 2008 pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Eluru. The petitioners herein are the accused therein and the respondent No.2 herein is the complainant. Originally he has filed the complaint before the Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Eluru and got it referred to the Eluru Rural Police Station and the same was registered in Crime No.119 of 2007 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 416 & 506(2) IPC. The police after investigation in the above said crime filed final report on 31.7.2007 referring the case as false. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent/complainant has field the protest petition before the Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Eluru and the same was taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 415 and 420 IPC against A.1 to A.3 and issued summonses by registering the case as C.C.No.90 of 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. No representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent in spite of passing over the matter from the morning till 2.30 p.m. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pleaded that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offences under Sections 415 and 420 IPC and the averments made in the complaint only against A.2 and A.3 in preventing the A.1 from coming in contact with the present complainant and the investigating agency earlier enquired into the matter of performing of marriage between A.1 and the defacto-complainant was found to be false. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent herein also filed O.P.No.108 of 2007 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru for restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner No.1 and the same was dismissed holding that there is no marriage between the 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner. Therefore, prima facie, no marriage took place between the defacto-complainant and the 1st petitioner. Even the allegations made in the complaint also show that he has tied the yellow thread around the neck of the defacto-complainant and they moved in different places like Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam, Annavaram, Dwaraka Tirumala, Vijayawada and Hyderabad and during that time, the 1st petitioner has induced the 2nd respondent to purchase the Scooty bearing No.AP 28 AQ 3075 by taking loan from I.C.I.C.I bank. Later on the complainant also purchased the other articles like phone, Divan, Bed, Tepai and Dining Set and the complainant used to give Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- to A.1. Basing on the said averments, it appears the contention of the 2nd respondent is that the A.1 has cheated him by making him to purchase the said articles for her but the subsequent averments made in the complaint shows that A.2 and A.3 prevented A.1 not coming in contact with the 2nd respondent herein and trying to perform the marriage of A.1 with some other person. Therefore, the above acts of A.2 and A.3 do not constitute the offences under Sections 415 and 420 IPC even if it admitted to be true. With regard to the allegations made against the petitioner No.1, no material was placed by the complainant either before the police or before the lower court to show that he has purchased the said articles and given to A.1 and the police in their final report has specifically mentioned that the allegations of the complainant and A.1 living together at Eluru is not true as his close friends and room-meat have denied about the same and he also denied about the petitioner No.1 and the 2nd respondent are living together at different places. Even if the petitioner has purchased the articles as alleged by him and handed over the same to the A.1, there is no material on record to show that the 1st petitioner has induced the 2nd respondent to purchase the said articles and handed over the same to him. Therefore, prima facie there is no material on record to establish the offences under Sections 415 and 420 IPC against any of the petitioners. Therefore, I hold that the continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No.90 of 2008 pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Eluru against the petitioners 1 to 3 would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.90 of 2008 pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Eluru are hereby quashed. ______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J. Date:25.03.2011. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3584 OF 2008 Dated 25-03-2011 Gk.