Mere promise of marriage without evidence of fraudulent intention does not constitute cheating under IPC, and subsequent breach cannot sustain criminal proceedings.

ORDER :

JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.11342 of 2021 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad (for short ‘trial Court’), pertaining to Crime No.446 of 2021 of P.S. Jubilee Hills, registered for the offences under Sections 406, 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Sri P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner-accused is the paternal aunt’s son of de facto complainant. In the year 2012, the petitioner went to U.S. to pursue his education. Since 2018, the petitioner and the de facto complainant are chatting over phone. The petitioner- accused proposed the de facto complainant and said that he will marry her, due to which, the de facto complainant has rejected all the matches. On returning to India in April, 2021, the petitioner informed the de facto complainant that his parents are against their marriage, but he will convince them and asked her to wait. Thereafter, the de facto complainant came to know that the petitioner-accused is ready to marry another woman. When the de facto complainant and her family members questioned him, the petitioner-accused refused to marry her. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.446 of 2021 was registered against the petitioner-accused and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the trial Court. The same was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.11342 of 2021 for the aforesaid offences.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. Since the petitioner is in good profession and earning a handsome salary, the de facto complainant developed love towards him and started asking him to marry her. However, as the petitioner-accused did not pay any attention to her demands, the present complaint was foisted against him by the de facto complainant, with an intention to hinder his job and blackmail to marry her. He further submits that there is no such relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant as alleged in the complaint, hence, the question of petitioner defrauding the de facto complainant does not arise. Even assuming that if the allegations of love affair and the promise made by the petitioner to marry the de facto complainant are true, still, the same would not make out the offences alleged, as the mere promise of marriage would not amount to cheating by any stretch, since there is no allegation of either taking advantage of the de facto complainant or her modesty, taking money and anything valuable. He further submits that the petitioner has a right to select his life partner. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner and the ingredients of the offences alleged against him are not made out. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. For the sake of convenience, Sections 406, 417 and 420 IPC is extracted hereunder:

4