ORDER :

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C.") to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 167 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakol. West Godavari, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 427 and 500 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.").

2. The respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint before Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakol against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 427 and 500 read with 34 of I.P.C. alleging that the marriage of the 2"'' daughter of the respondent No. 2 was settled with the petitioner No. 1 on 6-2-2011 and after compliance of necessary formalities, petitioners did not agree for the marriage. Petitioner No. 1/accused No. 1 informed the same over telephone. Though the respondent No. 2 spent Rs. 50,000/- towards betrothal function, the petitioners did not agree for the marriage. Thus, the act of the petitioners constitute offence punishable under Sections 420, 427 and 500 of IPC which was referred to police by exercising power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the same was registered as a case in Crime No. 33 of 2011 of Achanta Police Station. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Palakol and the same was registered as C.C. No. 167 of 2011.

3. The petitioners filed the present petition on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute offence punishable under Sections 420, 427 and 500 read with 34 of I.P.C. and that the complaint is filed only to drag the petitioners to the Court for one reason or the other and that too the breach of promise made at the time of betrothal do not constitute offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and requested to quash the proceedings.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, during hearing, while reiterating the contentions urged in the petition placed reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in "Varthya Shanker v. State of Telangana, 2019 (1) ALT (Crl.) 460 (A.P.) : (2018) Supreme 318 (AP)".

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 opposed the petition.

6. The genesis for the dispute is settlement of marriage of accused No. 1 with the 2nd daughter of respondent No. 2 and after performing necessary formalities like betrothal, petitioners refused to perform the marriage of accused No. 1 with the 2nd daughter of respondent No. 2. The alleged performance of betrothal and exchange of betel leaves etc., do not create any contractual obligation between the parties to the function and at best it may create moral obligation. Even otherwise, such acts do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. as held in "Varthya Shanker v. State of Telangana" 2019 (1) ALT (Crl.) 460 (A.P.) : (2018) Supreme 318 (AP) (supra). Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. are liable to be quashed by applying the principle laid down in the above judgment.

7. The other offence allegedly committed by the petitioners is punishable under Section 427 of I.P.C. Section 427 of I.P.C. deals with mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees. The word "mischief" is defined under Section 425 of I.P.C. and the same is extracted hereunder.

"425. Mischief:- Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief."

8. It is the contention of the respondent No. 2 that on account of settlement of marriage, performance betrothal lowers the prestige of respondent No. 2 and they incurred not less than Rs. 50,000/- for celebration of b