THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.10798 OF 2024

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’) seeking quashment of C.C.No.5967 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at L.B. Nagar against the petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr. Shyam S. Agrawal, learned counsel representing M.Satish Kumar Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

3. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that the petitioner/accused proposed marriage to the de facto complainant/respondent No. 2, assuring her that he would secure his parents’ consent and proceed with the marriage. However, at a later stage, he reneged on his promise and refused to marry her. This abrupt change allegedly caused the complainant severe emotional distress, ultimately leading to a suicide attempt. Consequently, the complainant lodged a police complaint, alleging that the petitioner had deceived her. The complaint was registered as Crime No. 591 of 2019 under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Following investigation, the police filed a charge sheet.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even a plain reading of the allegations in the police report, taken at face value, does not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC. He argues that, according to the complainant’s own version, the petitioner did nothing beyond making a promise to marry her. There is no indication that he exploited her in a manner that would fulfill the elements of the offences alleged. On this basis, counsel submits that allowing the proceedings to continue would constitute an abuse of the judicial process, and he therefore prays for the quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 5967 of 2019.

In support of his arguments, counsel relies on precedent from this Court and the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, namely: (i) M. Giriprasad v. K. Munikrishna Reddy, 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 52 (AP); (ii) Varthya Shanker and Others v. State of Telangana and Others, 2018 (2) ALD (Crl.) 622; (iii) Subbnarapu Prasanna Kumar and Others v. State of A.P. and Others, 2019 (3) ALT (Crl.) 34 (AP); and a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Chowdhari Donthineni and Others v. The State of Karnataka and Others, 2022:KHC:6402.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations in the police report have been corroborated by the statements of the complainant and other witnesses during the investigation. As a result, the investigating agency filed a charge sheet, asserting that the facts disclose the commission of the offence of cheating. He argues that the credibility and veracity of these allegations are matters to be examined during trial, and thus, judicial interference at this preliminary stage is unwarranted.

6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels and perused the materials on record.

7. Upon perusal of the petitioner’s statement, it emerges that the petitioner and the de facto complainant were acquainted with each other since their college days. In November 2016, the petitioner allegedly proposed marriage to the complainant, assuring her that he would obtain the consent of his parents and other family members. However, citing his parents’ disapproval, he later withdrew from the commitment. Subsequently, in the presence of his friends, the petitioner is said to have acknowledged his mistake and reaffirmed his intention to marry her. Despite this, he once again reneged on his promise. Further allegations suggest that the petitioner engaged in coercive conduct by blackmailing the complainant to meet him, implying emotional manipulation. On these grounds, the de facto complainant alleged that she was deceive