Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. - Sec. 420,306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. - Marriage engagement was broken down - police registered a case and filed charge sheet - mere break down of marriage engagement does not fasten criminal liability - their lordships of High court quashed the case =
whether the charge
sheet laid against the petitioners is liable to be quashed in exercise of powers
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.=
Point:
The complaint does not show any inducement made by the petitioners for
presenting the gold ornaments to A1. The complaint only shows that both parties
agreed for the marriage of LW 3-Thulasi and A1 and the engagement function took
place on 10.06.2012.
Therefore, from the facts, it can be understood that
basing on the promise made by the petitioners, the de facto complainant
celebrated the engagement function and also spent some amount under the
impression that his daughter's marriage will be performed with A1.
Subsequently, for the reasons best known to him, A1 did not agree to marry LW 3-
Thulasi, the daughter of the de facto complainant.=
I am of the considered view that the act complained of would not attract any
criminal offence. Letdown from a promise to marry does not in any way attract
the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Further, merely because A1 received some
gold ornaments presented by the de facto complainant it does not constitute an
offence of criminal breach of trust. It appears from the complaint allegations
that the de facto complainant incurred some expenditure under the impression
that his daughter's marriage would be performed with A1 on a date agreed upon by
both parties. Subsequently, however, as A1 was not willing to marry LW 3-
Thulasi, the daughter of the de facto complainant, the marriage could not be
performed. The de facto complainant since acted on the promise made by the
petitioners, more particularly, that of A1, if he had really incurred any
expenditure based on the assurance of the petitioners, he can recover the same
by way of damages which remedy lies in civil law. I do not think any criminal
offence is made out against the petitioners warranting prosecution against them.
For the foregoing reasons, I am inclined to quash the criminal proceedings
pending against the petitioners in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Consequently, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.554/2012 on the file of the III
Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati are hereby quashed.
The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
2013 (March. Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11078
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITON No.8824 of 2013
24-03-2014
M.Giriprasad and 4 others....Petitioners
K.Munikrishna Reddy and another.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt D.SANGEETHA REDDY
Counsel for the respondent No.1: ---
Counsel for the respondent No.2: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases Referred:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8824 of 2013
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8824 of 2013
ORDER:
The criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 to A5 under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.554/2012 on the file of the III
Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State. None appeared for the 1st
respondent/de facto complainant.
It is alleged in the charge sheet that the petitioners/A1 to A5 visited the
house of the de facto complainant twice for marriage alliance of A1 with LW 3-
Thulasi, the daughter of the de facto complainant. After negotiations, the
marriage was fixed and on 10.06.2012 the de facto complainant celebrated the
engagement function between A1 and LW 3-Thulasi at Ayyappa Seva Samithi
Committee Hall, Rayalnagar, Tirupati in the presence of elders and relatives of
both parties as per Hindu tradition. Lagnapatrika was also prepared proposing
the marriage to be held on 29.08.2012. It is alleged that an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- was spent by the de facto complainant for celebrating the
engagement function. It is further alleged that the de facto complainant
presented a gold chain weighing about 20 grams and a bracelet weighing about 20
grams worth Rs.1,20,023/- to A1. The de facto complainant purchased the gold
jewelry to LW 3-Thulasi and he also booked TTD Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam, Block
No.1 by furnishing the full details of bride and bridegroom. He also paid
advances to the marriage contractors for marriage arrangements. While the
marriage arrangements were in progress, the de facto complainant telephoned to
the house number of the accused on 22.07.2012, but none lifted the phone.
Thereafter, the de facto complainant telephoned to A1 for ascertaining the
surname for printing the wedding cards, then A1 informed him that he was not
willing to marry his daughter, LW 3-Thulasi and advised the de facto complainant
to perform marriage of his daughter with another boy. Thereafter, mediation
took place between both parties, but A1 did not agree to marry LW 3-Thulasi. On
that the de facto complainant lodged a report with the Station House Officer,
West Police Station, Tirupati and the police registered the said report as a
case in Cr.No.143/2012 for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420
r/w.Sec.34 IPC and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet.
The said charge sheet is sought to be quashed in the present criminal petition.
The point for consideration in this criminal petition is whether the charge
sheet laid against the petitioners is liable to be quashed in exercise of powers
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Point:
The complaint does not show any inducement made by the petitioners for
presenting the gold ornaments to A1. The complaint only shows that both parties
agreed for the marriage of LW 3-Thulasi and A1 and the engagement function took
place on 10.06.2012. Therefore, from the facts, it can be understood that
basing on the promise made by the petitioners, the de facto complainant
celebrated the engagement function and also spent some amount under the
impression that his daughter's marriage will be performed with A1.
Subsequently, for the reasons best known to him, A1 did not agree to marry LW 3-
Thulasi, the daughter of the de facto complainant.
I am of the considered view that the act complained of would not attract any
criminal offence. Letdown from a promise to marry does not in any way attract
the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Further, merely because A1 received some
gold ornaments presented by the de facto complainant it does not constitute an
offence of criminal breach of trust. It appears from the complaint allegations
that the de facto complainant incurred some expenditure under the impression
that his daughter's marriage would be performed with A1 on a date agreed upon by
both parties. Subsequently, however, as A1 was not willing to marry LW 3-
Thulasi, the daughter of the de facto complainant, the marriage could not be
performed. The de facto complainant since acted on the promise made by the
petitioners, more particularly, that of A1, if he had really incurred any
expenditure based on the assurance of the petitioners, he can recover the same
by way of damages which remedy lies in civil law. I do not think any criminal
offence is made out against the petitioners warranting prosecution against them.
For the foregoing reasons, I am inclined to quash the criminal proceedings
pending against the petitioners in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Consequently, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.554/2012 on the file of the III
Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati are hereby quashed.
The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
_____________________
R.KANTHA RAO,J
Date: 24.03.2014
whether the charge
sheet laid against the petitioners is liable to be quashed in exercise of powers
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.=
Point:
The complaint does not show any inducement made by the petitioners for
presenting the gold ornaments to A1. The complaint only shows that both parties
agreed for the marriage of LW 3-Thulasi and A1 and the engagement function took
place on 10.06.2012.
Therefore, from the facts, it can be understood that
basing on the promise made by the petitioners, the de facto complainant
celebrated the engagement function and also spent some amount under the
impression that his daughter's marriage will be performed with A1.
Subsequently, for the reasons best known to him, A1 did not agree to marry LW 3-
Thulasi, the daughter of the de facto complainant.=
I am of the considered view that the act complained of would not attract any
criminal offence. Letdown from a promise to marry does not in any way attract
the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Further, merely because A1 received some
gold ornaments presented by the de facto complainant it does not constitute an
offence of criminal breach of trust. It appears from the complaint allegations
that the de facto complainant incurred some expenditure under the impression
that his daughter's marriage would be performed with A1 on a date agreed upon by
both parties. Subsequently, however, as A1 was not willing to marry LW 3-
Thulasi, the daughter of the de facto complainant, the marriage could not be
performed. The de facto complainant since acted on the promise made by the
petitioners, more particularly, that of A1, if he had really incurred any
expenditure based on the assurance of the petitioners, he can recover the same
by way of damages which remedy lies in civil law. I do not think any criminal
offence is made out against the petitioners warranting prosecution against them.
For the foregoing reasons, I am inclined to quash the criminal proceedings
pending against the petitioners in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Consequently, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.554/2012 on the file of the III
Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati are hereby quashed.
The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
2013 (March. Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11078
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITON No.8824 of 2013
24-03-2014
M.Giriprasad and 4 others....Petitioners
K.Munikrishna Reddy and another.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt D.SANGEETHA REDDY
Counsel for the respondent No.1: ---
Counsel for the respondent No.2: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases Referred:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8824 of 2013
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8824 of 2013
ORDER:
The criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 to A5 under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.554/2012 on the file of the III
Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State. None appeared for the 1st
respondent/de facto complainant.
It is alleged in the charge sheet that the petitioners/A1 to A5 visited the
house of the de facto complainant twice for marriage alliance of A1 with LW 3-
Thulasi, the daughter of the de facto complainant. After negotiations, the
marriage was fixed and on 10.06.2012 the de facto complainant celebrated the
engagement function between A1 and LW 3-Thulasi at Ayyappa Seva Samithi
Committee Hall, Rayalnagar, Tirupati in the presence of elders and relatives of
both parties as per Hindu tradition. Lagnapatrika was also prepared proposing
the marriage to be held on 29.08.2012. It is alleged that an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- was spent by the de facto complainant for celebrating the
engagement function. It is further alleged that the de facto complainant
presented a gold chain weighing about 20 grams and a bracelet weighing about 20
grams worth Rs.1,20,023/- to A1. The de facto complainant purchased the gold
jewelry to LW 3-Thulasi and he also booked TTD Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam, Block
No.1 by furnishing the full details of bride and bridegroom. He also paid
advances to the marriage contractors for marriage arrangements. While the
marriage arrangements were in progress, the de facto complainant telephoned to
the house number of the accused on 22.07.2012, but none lifted the phone.
Thereafter, the de facto complainant telephoned to A1 for ascertaining the
surname for printing the wedding cards, then A1 informed him that he was not
willing to marry his daughter, LW 3-Thulasi and advised the de facto complainant
to perform marriage of his daughter with another boy. Thereafter, mediation
took place between both parties, but A1 did not agree to marry LW 3-Thulasi. On
that the de facto complainant lodged a report with the Station House Officer,
West Police Station, Tirupati and the police registered the said report as a
case in Cr.No.143/2012 for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420
r/w.Sec.34 IPC and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet.
The said charge sheet is sought to be quashed in the present criminal petition.
The point for consideration in this criminal petition is whether the charge
sheet laid against the petitioners is liable to be quashed in exercise of powers
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Point:
The complaint does not show any inducement made by the petitioners for
presenting the gold ornaments to A1. The complaint only shows that both parties
agreed for the marriage of LW 3-Thulasi and A1 and the engagement function took
place on 10.06.2012. Therefore, from the facts, it can be understood that
basing on the promise made by the petitioners, the de facto complainant
celebrated the engagement function and also spent some amount under the
impression that his daughter's marriage will be performed with A1.
Subsequently, for the reasons best known to him, A1 did not agree to marry LW 3-
Thulasi, the daughter of the de facto complainant.
I am of the considered view that the act complained of would not attract any
criminal offence. Letdown from a promise to marry does not in any way attract
the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Further, merely because A1 received some
gold ornaments presented by the de facto complainant it does not constitute an
offence of criminal breach of trust. It appears from the complaint allegations
that the de facto complainant incurred some expenditure under the impression
that his daughter's marriage would be performed with A1 on a date agreed upon by
both parties. Subsequently, however, as A1 was not willing to marry LW 3-
Thulasi, the daughter of the de facto complainant, the marriage could not be
performed. The de facto complainant since acted on the promise made by the
petitioners, more particularly, that of A1, if he had really incurred any
expenditure based on the assurance of the petitioners, he can recover the same
by way of damages which remedy lies in civil law. I do not think any criminal
offence is made out against the petitioners warranting prosecution against them.
For the foregoing reasons, I am inclined to quash the criminal proceedings
pending against the petitioners in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Consequently, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.554/2012 on the file of the III
Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati are hereby quashed.
The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
_____________________
R.KANTHA RAO,J
Date: 24.03.2014
