IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4927 & 5418 of 2009 DATE:10.02.2011 CRIMINAL PETITION No.4927 of 2009 Between: Sri Vijay Bushanam …… Petitioner And The S.H.O, Mahaboobnagar II Town P.S Rep. by Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION No.5418 of 2009 Between: J.J.David and another …… Petitioners And The S.H.O, Mahaboobnagar II Town P.S Rep. by Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4927 & 5418 of 2009 COMMON ORDER : The petitioners in these two petitions who are A-2 to A-4 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 I.P.C in Crime No.90/2009 of Mahaboobnagar II Town Police Station. A-2 and A-3 are parents of A-1 who is not a petitioner herein. A-4 is stated to be maternal uncle of A-1. It is stated by the counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant that A-4 is the mediator for fixation of marriage between A-1 and the 2nd respondent’s daughter. The said fact does not find place in report given by the 2nd respondent to the police. 2) It is alleged that marriage of the 2nd respondent’s daughter Latha Grace was fixed with A-1 and both sides agreed for dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- as demanded by A-2 and A-3 and that on 04.07.2008 engagement function was arranged by spending huge amount and that on the day of engagement, the 2nd respondent gave Rs.2,00,000/- to A-2 and A-3 and assured to pay remaining dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- prior to the marriage. It is further alleged that the 2nd respondent completed all the arrangements for marriage by giving advance to the marriage hall, photographs and video, purchasing of clothes, jewellery etc., and that in third week of July, 2008, parents of A-1 approached the 2nd respondent with a request to postpone the marriage from 10.10.2008 to 18.12.2008 as the company in which A-1 has been working decided to send A-1 to U.S.A on project work in September, 2008 and that the marriage was accordingly postponed and that A-1 was regularly calling the 2nd respondent’s daughter from U.S.A. It is further alleged that in spite of A-1’s promise to return to India on 10.12.2008, he did not come to India and that A-1 to A-3 started postponing the marriage for different reasons and that from the second week of December, 2008 onwards when the 2nd respondent tried to contact A-1 on phone, A-1 stopped responding the calls and that finally on 12.01.2009 A-2 and A-3 informed the 2nd respondent’s family over telephone that their son is not willing to marry and that he was not showing any reason for his denial. In those circumstances, the 2nd respondent lodged the report with the police for the alleged cheating of his daughter by A-1 to A-4. 3) In so far as A-4 is concerned, in the entire report of the 2nd respondent given to the police, there is absolutely no indication as to the role played by A-4 either in fixation of marriage or in performing of engagement function or in receipt of part of the dowry or in cancellation of the marriage proposal. Suddenly A-4’s name came to be mentioned in the last paragraph along with A-1 to A-3 as the person who cheated the 2nd respondent’s daughter. In the absence of specific allegations and in the absence of assigning any role to A-4 in the transaction, registration of the case against A-4 is not warranted by law. 4) In so far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned, the petitioners’ counsel contended that in the absence of allegation of dishonest intention of their part at the beginning of the transaction, A-2 and A-3 cannot be said to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 I.P.C. It is further contended that mere mentioning of the word ‘cheating’ in he report given by the 2nd respondent to the police is not going to decide offences said to have been committed by them in the absence of necessary ingredients relating to those offences in the report. Reliance was placed by the petitioners’ counsel in support of his contentions o n Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma V. State of Bihar[1], Anil Mahajan V. Bhor Industries Ltd.,[2], Sharon Michael V. State of Tamil Nadu[3], Dalip Kaur V. Jagnar Singh[4], V.P.Shrivastava V. Indian Explosives Limited[5] of the Supreme Court. In all the above reported decisions of the Supreme Court the factual matrices relate to commercial transactions where cheating, criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust etc., were alleged when commercial contracts entered into between the parties became aborted. The respective complainants filed private complaints before the Magistrates for taking penal action for the breaches made by the opposite parties in respect of the contracts entered into with the respective complainants. In my opinion, the above case law relating to commercial litigation cannot be applied to the present litigation relating to marriage. In the case on hand, the report is given by a layman. Unfortunate father of the girl whose marriage proposal could not be carried out because of the attitude of A-1 to A-3 after having receiving part of dowry amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, drafted the report personally. It is for the investigating officer to go into the question whether A-1 to A-3 had any dishonest intention even at the time of marriage settlement prior to performing of engagement function. A layman like the 2nd respondent cannot be expected to rewrite all the ingredients of Sections 417 and 420 I.P.C in his gullible report presented to the police. It was not a report to the police in the form of a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the Magistrate which was prepared with legal assistance of an Advocate. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that F.I.R in this crime is liable to be quashed at its threshold without any further investigation. 5) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that A-2 and A- 3 also intended to proceed with the marriage and made lot of purchases of articles, clothes and even jewellery. The petitioners filed copies of bills relating to the alleged purchases. It is for the petitioners to produce those documents before the investigating officer who would be in a position to verify whether they are true and genuine bills and to take appropriate action basing on the conclusions to be arrived at by the investigating officer. 6) CRIMINAL PETITION No.4927 of 2009: In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed quashing F.I.R in Crime No.90/2009 of Mahaboobnagar II Town Police Station in so far as petitioner/A-4 is concerned. 7) CRIMINAL PETITION No.5418 of 2009: In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 10, 2011 ksh [1] 2000(3) Supreme 13 [2] (2006)1 Supreme Court Cases(Cri)746 [3] (2009)3 Supreme Court Cases 375 [4] (2009)14 Supreme Court Cases 696 [5] (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 361