THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5670 OF 2008 Dated : 15.12.2009 Between : Kondisetty Srinivasa Rao ….. Petitioner/Accused a n d The State of A.P. & another ….. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5670 OF 2008 ORDER : This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/Accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.299 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District, for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 384 I.P.C. 2) Heard. 3) The allegation against the petitioner is that he promised to marry the defacto complainant and though the marriage date was fixed, the marriage has not taken place on account of shortage of funds. The petitioner-accused, who promised to help the complainant to raise funds, did not turn up and subsequently he extracted a letter from the complainant forcibly for cancellation of marriage. 4) A reading of the complaint reveals that on 14.12.2002 the betrothal function of the complainant with the petitioner was performed and the complainant’s family wanted to sell their site for raising funds for marriage, but they could not. On account of that, there was delay in performance of the marriage. It was also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner offered to arrange Rs.2 lakhs on interest and the complainant expected amount from him, but that also did not materialize and finally the petitioner intended to marry another girl and one day he went to her house in the absence of other family members and asked her to sign on a paper saying that she is agreeing for cancellation of marriage and when she refused, he threatened to commit suicide by stabbing himself with scissor and on account of that she signed on the paper. Further, the petitioner contending that the complainant has willingly withdrawn from marrying him tried to marry another girl and to go to Dubai. 5) Even the averments of the complaint are taken as true also, perhaps no offence might be constituted against the petitioner as there is no allegation of any demand for dowry or canceling the marriage on account of non-payment of dowry. The amount that could not be raised by the complainant is apparently towards marriage expenses and during the course of arguments it is revealed that the accused- petitioner did not marry on the other hand, the complainant married another boy. All these circumstances would show that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner-accused. 6) In these circumstances, there is no justification in continuing prosecution against the petitioner. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.299 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District, are quashed. ______________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J 15th December, 2009 SUR