Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
JUVVADI SRIDEVI
Ch.Kanakaraju @ Chinnam Kanakaraju – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor – Respondent
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 d
Mere promise of marriage without evidence of fraudulent intention does not constitute cheating under IPC, and subsequent breach cannot sustain criminal proceedings.
A mere promise to marry, followed by a breach, does not constitute an offence of cheating under Section 420 of IPC unless there is evidence of deception, fraudulent inducement, and intention to cause....
The court found that allegations of cheating were unfounded as the complainant misrepresented her marital status while the relationship was consensual, reinforcing the principle that misuse of legal ....
Cheating – Long duration of physical relationship between partners without protest and insistence by female partner for marriage, would be indicative of a consensual relationship.
The court emphasized that prosecution for cheating requires clear evidence of dishonest intention from the outset, and vague allegations without such intent constitute an abuse of process.
The intention to cheat must be established at the time of inducement; mere failure to fulfill a promise does not constitute cheating.
The absence of specific allegations against the petitioner in a criminal complaint warrants quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
