IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.3098 OF 2024 DATE : 11.03.2026 Between:

Kalleda Santhosh.

…Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad and another …Respondents :ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 216 of 2023, pending on the file of the learned Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Godavarikhani.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in the aforesaid calendar case, which has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections

417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”).

3. Heard Mr. J. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1–State, as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/de facto complainant.

4.1. The factual matrix, in brief, is that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint dated 13.10.2022 alleging that, in the year 2018, when she was pursuing Intermediate II year, the petitioner approached her professing love. Initially, she declined his proposal; however, it is alleged that the petitioner persisted and emotionally persuaded her by stating that he would end his life if she did not accept his proposal. It is further alleged that over a period of approximately five years, the petitioner continued the relationship, promising to marry her, during which time they remained in contact through a mobile phone gifted by him and met on several occasions, which was known to her friends.

4.2. Subsequently, when respondent No.2 insisted on marriage, the petitioner is stated to have refused, expressing instead a willingness to pay compensation. It is further alleged that a mediation was conducted by community elders on 07.10.2022, wherein the petitioner initially agreed to marry her but later resiled from the said assurance. On these allegations, the complaint came to be registered, accusing the petitioner of cheating under Sections 417 and 420 IPC.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged. It is submitted that there is no averment indicating that the petitioner had any dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the relationship. It is further contended that the complaint does not disclose any element of inducement resulting in delivery of property or any legally cognizable harm as contemplated under Section 415 IPC. The dispute, at best, reflects a failed personal relationship and does not attract criminal liability. It is thus argued that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5.2. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon earlier judgments of this Court in Crl.P. No. 10798 of 2024 and Crl.P. No. 974 of 2022, wherein, under similar circumstances, the proceedings were quashed on the ground that mere breach of a promise to marry does not constitute cheating in the absence of fraudulent intent at the inception.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner induced the de facto complainant into a prolonged relationship on the false promise of marriage and subsequently refused to fulfill the same, thereby causing emotional and reputational harm. It is contended that such conduct squarely falls within the ambit of cheating, and that the question of intention is a matter of evidence to be adjudicated at trial. It is further urged that premature quashing would prejudice the case of the complainant.

7. This Court has carefully perused the material available on record and considered the rival su