1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.532 OF 2009. Vijay S/o Prabhakar Sonkamble and others ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.R.N.Bharaswadkar, advocate for the petitioners. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1. Mr.S.C.Bhosale, advocate for the Respondent No.3. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 01.10.2009. PER COURT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of First Information Report dated 2 8.5.2009, rendered by the Respondent No.3 at Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded, whereupon Crime No.138/2009, came to be registered against them for offence of cheating. 3. Briefly stated, the averments in the FIR lodged by the Respondent No.3 are that the petitioners agreed to consider the alliance of the petitioner No.1 for his daughter. On 18.12.2008, the petitioner No.1 visited house of the Respondent No.3 (complainant) to see his daughter by name Hemlata. On next day, he was telephonically informed that his daughter was approved as proposed bride. The formal settlement of the marriage was effected on 31.12.2008. He gave a gold ring and other gifts to the petitioner No.1 and his parents etc. as per the custom prevailing amongst members of Boudh religion. The petitioner also gave a gold ring to Hemlata. The date of marriage was to be settled. The petitioners refused to perform the marriage which was settled. The Respondent No.3 (complainant) alleges that the petitioners cancelled the marriage proposal without any 3 reason. He felt cheated due to sudden cancellation of the marriage proposal. He also felt that it was a cruel joke played by the petitioners and, therefore, he lodged the FIR. 4. Heard learned counsel and learned A.P.P. 5. At the outset it is significant to notice that the FIR does not reveal any element of dishonest intention on part of the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioner No.1 also gave a gold ring in return when the marriage was settled. Had there been absence of any intention of considering the proposal of the marriage then the petitioner No.1 might not have given the gold ring to the proposed bride. There is absolutely nothing in the FIR to show that since inception the petitioners had no intention to consider the marriage proposal and they wanted to only make a show of settlement of the marriage. What transpires from the recitals of the FIR is that when the date of marriage was to be fixed, the Respondent No.3 persuaded the petitioners to 4 inform him as to when should be the marriage performed and they had put off fixing of the date. The recitals of the FIR clearly show that the petitioners informed the Respondent No.3 that the marriage was to be performed without pomp and show. The relative of the Respondent No.3 was intermeddler in settlement of the marriage. Obviously, the complaint is lodged only because the Respondent No.3 was anguished due to frustration of the marriage proposal when the petitioners declined to fix the date of marriage and lateron communicated that it may be deemed as cancelled. The frustration of contract of marriage by itself can not be regarded as offence of cheating. 6. Considering the nature of allegations made in the FIR, I am of the opinion that there is hardly any material to constitute ingredients of the offence punishable U/s 420 of the I.P.Code. In such circumstances, continuation of the FIR would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The Police machinery is also likely to be engaged in investigation which itself is 5 non-startle in view of the allegations in the FIR. Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR is quashed. Rule made absolute. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp53209