C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) CRIMINAL Petition No. 2781 of 2002 is filed by the State to cancel the bail granted to the accused in Crime No. 104 of 2002 of W. P. S. , Central Crime Station, Hyderabad; Criminal Petition No. 3171 of 2002 is filed by the complainant, on whose complaint the police registered the case in Crime No. 104 of 2002, for cancellation of bail granted to the accused in the said crime, and the Criminal Petition No. 3354 of 2002 is filed by the accused in the same crime to quash the F. I. R. , in the aforesaid Crime No. 104 of 2002. ( 2 ) SINCE all the three petitions arise out of the same crime, they are being disposed of by a common order. ( 3 ) ON a complaint given Miss. Jyothi, who is the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 3171 of 2002, (hereinafter called the complainant), alleging that Kumar Murkurthi i. e. , petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 3354 of 2002 (hereinafter called the accused) after having met her about 1. 1/2 years prior to the lodging of the complaint enticed her into having an affair with him and made her pregnant and refused to marry her, a case in the aforesaid crime No. 104 of 2002 was registered against the accused under Sections 420 and 493 I. P. C. After registration of the said crime, on an application by the accused the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad, granted anticipatory bail to him with certain conditions, in Criminal M. P. No. 706 of 2002 by the order dated 5-4-2002. Thereafter the accused filed Criminal M. P. No. 1656 of 2002 seeking temporary relaxation of the condition restraining him from leaving India and to permit him to go to U. S. A. to see his ailing parents. By the order dated 27-6-2002 the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge accorded permission to the accused to go to U. S. A. on condition of his executing a Bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Questioning the said relaxation the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State filed Criminal Petition No. 2781 of 2002 and the complainant filed Criminal Petition No. 3171 of 2002. 50,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Questioning the said relaxation the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State filed Criminal Petition No. 2781 of 2002 and the complainant filed Criminal Petition No. 3171 of 2002. Thereafter accused filed Criminal Petition No. 3354 of 2002 to quash the F. I. R. in Crime No. 104 of 2002 registered against him. ( 4 ) THE main contention of Sri S. Ramchander Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the accused, is that the averments in the F. I. R. even if taken to be true in their entirety do not make out an offence under Section 493 I. P. C. and in any event in view of the embargo in Section 198 Cr. P. C. , question of Court taking cognizance of an offence under Section 493 I. P. C. on the basis of police investigating does not arise, by placing strong reliance on K. A. N. SUBRAHMANYAM vs. J. RAMALAKSHMI1 and MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI vs. KUNHIKOYA2, D. VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. D. SANJEEVA REDDY AND ANOTHER3, K. VIJAYA LAKSHMI Vs. K. LAXMINARAYANA4, G. NARASIMHAN Vs. T. V. CHOKKAPPA5 and LILY THOMAS vs. UNION OF INDIA6. ( 5 ) IN K. A. N SUBRAHMANYAM (1 supra) and MOIDEENKUTTI HAJI (2 supra) it is held that for Section 493 I. P. C. to apply a woman must be made to believe that she was lawfully wedded to the person who induced her to have sexual intercourse with him on such belief. In D. VIJAYA LAKSHMI case (3 supra) while taking note of the fact that by making the offence under Section 494 I. P. C. , cognizable in the State of Andhra Pradesh by virtue of a State amendment to the 1st Schedule of Cr. P. C. , corresponding amendment to Section 198 Cr. P. C. , was not made, a learned single Judge of this Court held that though the Investigating agency is at liberty to register a case and conduct investigation into an offence under Section 494 I. P. C. , the court is precluded from taking cognizance of the said offence, on a police report. In K. VIJAYA LAKSHMI (4 supra) a private complaint under Section 494 I. P. C. was referred by the Magistrate for police investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. In K. VIJAYA LAKSHMI (4 supra) a private complaint under Section 494 I. P. C. was referred by the Magistrate for police investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. and on the basis of charge-sheet filed by the police, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 494 I. P. C. This Court held that in view of the prohibition contained in Section 198 Cr. P. C. the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by the police. In G. NARASIMHAN (5 supra) it was held that Section 198, which is an exception to the general rule that a complaint can be filed by anybody whether he is an aggrieved person or not, is mandatory. In para 25 of LILY THOMAS (6 supra) The Supreme Court held that the Court would take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of Cr. P. C. only on a complaint made by any of the persons specified in the Section. ( 6 ) THE next contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that since the main offence alleged against the accused is under Section 493 I. P. C. and since Section 420 I. P. C. is only ancillary, if cognizance for an offence under Section 493 I. P. C. cannot be taken, cognizance for an offence under Section 420 I. P. C. cannot be taken. He relied on GURU BIPIN SINGH Vs. G. M. SINGH7 and HRIDAYA RANJAN PRASAD VERMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR8 in support of the said contention. Relying on SUNIL KUMAR Vs. ESCORTS YAMAHA MOTORS9, he contended that since the complaint does not make out an offence it is but an abuse of the process of the Court, and so the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. It is his contention that the fact that in some other cases the persons accused of offences who went out of India could not be apprehended and brought to India reflects the inefficiency of police, and inefficiency of the police to secure the presence of an accused in other cases cannot be made a ground for denying the right of the accused to go to U. S. A. to call on his ailing parents. He finally contended that one Mohd. He finally contended that one Mohd. Aslam Hussain and Sai Sekhar, who is the brother of the maternal uncle of the accused are willing to stand sureties to the accused and so, in any event, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge granting permission to go to U. S. A. His next contention is that the complainant has no locus standi to question the order of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, more so because State filed a petition for the same purpose. ( 7 ) THE contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that since the investigation is almost completed and the police are likely to file the charge sheet in a few days, if the petitioner, who is not an Indian national, is permitted to leave India, in all likelihood he may not come back to India. It is his contention that in several other offences relating to marriages several accused who were permitted to go abroad, have not come back to India to take trial, and so several cases are pending trial. In reply to the contention that in efficiency of police to nab criminal abroad cannot be a ground to refuse permission to the accused to go to U. S. A. he contended that since Andhra Pradesh police have no jurisdiction to arrest an accused staying in another country, necessarily they have to seek the interference of Interpol or the police of the other countries, and since in other countries the offences against marriage are not taken as serious offences, and since Interpol and police in U. S. A. , are busy with more heinous crimes and crimes relating to Narcotic Drugs, they do not give the required attention to offences relating to marriages, and so most of the persons who are required in India in offences relating to marriages i. e. , Section 494 and 498-A I. P. C. etc. , are not being apprehended. He contended that in the event of the Court granting permission to the accused to leave India, heavy sureties may be ordered from him to secure his presence as was done in the case of SRICHAND P. HINDUJA vs. STATE10 where the Supreme Court ordered the accused to furnish Bonds for Rs. 15,00,00,000/ -. , are not being apprehended. He contended that in the event of the Court granting permission to the accused to leave India, heavy sureties may be ordered from him to secure his presence as was done in the case of SRICHAND P. HINDUJA vs. STATE10 where the Supreme Court ordered the accused to furnish Bonds for Rs. 15,00,00,000/ -. ( 8 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that since the criminal law was set into motion against the accused on the complaint given by the complainant, she has a right to approach the Court to seek cancellation of the order of the learned Sessions Judge permitting the petitioner to leave India on execution of a Bond, and contended that if the accused is permitted to leave India, he would not come back to India and would not take up trial of the case and so till the case is finally decided by the criminal Court he should not be permitted to leave India and in any event if permission is granted, some onerous conditions should be imposed to ensure his presence in India because he is not a citizen of India. He also contended that the father of the accused is very influential person, having wide contacts and had met several important persons to see that the accused should leave the country to evade trial, and contended that the complainant, who gave birth to a child of the accused, would be put to any amount of mental torture, humiliation and hardship if the accused were to leave India. His next contention is that the landlord of the house in which the accused is staying may be directed to execute a Bond to secure the presence of the accused in this case. He relied on RAJESH BAJAJ vs. STATE OF DELHI11 where it is held that the complainant need not verbatim reproduce in the body of the complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging and it is not necessary that the complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent and if the averments in the complaint prima facie make out a case for investigation, the High Court cannot quash the complaint merely because one or two ingredients have not been stated in detail. He also relied on STATE OF ORISSA vs. SHARAT CHANDRA SAHU12, where it is held that if a complaint comprises of two offences, one cognizable and other non-cognizable offence relating to marriage, quashing of complaint on the ground of non-filing of a complaint by aggrieved party is not proper. He also relied on STATE OF BIHAR vs. CHANDRA BHUSHAN SINGH13 where it is held that if a Police Officer investigates into a non-cognizable offence and files a report, it would be deemed to be a complaint under Section 2 (d) of Cr. P. C. He further contended that the offence of cheating need not necessarily relate to property, but can be by personation also. ( 9 ) THOUGH the provisions of Section 493 I. P. C. may not prima facie be attracted to the facts of this case, the complaint prima facie discloses that she was cheated and was induced by the complainant to have sexual intercourse with him. Therefore the question as to whether the Court can take cognizance of the offence under Section 493 I. P. C. when the complaint was not presented by the complainant herself, is not much of relevance for deciding the petition. Since offence of cheating is a cognizable offence and police can investigate and file a charge sheet, the accused has to take trial atleast for the offence of cheating. So the question of quashing the complaint (FIR) against him does not arise, more so because it is stated that the police have completed the investigation and are likely to file a charge sheet in a few days. ( 10 ) THE accused who admittedly is not an Indian citizen is seeking leave of the Court to go to U. S. A. to see his ailing parents. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no material is placed by the accused to show that his parents are ailing. So it is difficult to believe that the parents of the accused are ailing. Probably the accused, with a view to gain the sympathy of the Court, thought it fit to allege the ailment of his parents as a ground to seek relaxation of the condition restraining his leaving India being relaxed. So it is difficult to believe that the parents of the accused are ailing. Probably the accused, with a view to gain the sympathy of the Court, thought it fit to allege the ailment of his parents as a ground to seek relaxation of the condition restraining his leaving India being relaxed. Since admittedly the accused is not a citizen of India, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant it will be very difficult for the prosecution to secure the presence of the accused, if he is permitted to leave India at this stage. ( 11 ) THERE is sufficient force in the contention of the counsel for the complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in other countries offences against marriages are not taken as serious offences and so probably the attention that is required of is not being paid or bestowed to apprehend the accused in cases of offences relating to marriages for apprehending them. ( 12 ) IN this case though the accused has not produced any evidence to show that his parents are ailing, since he wants to go abroad for a few weeks, he can be granted permission to leave India for a few weeks to attend on his parents, who are said to be ailing, but, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the amount of surety ordered by the learned Sessions Judge is too meager, and regard being had to the status and affluence of the accused and his parents, he could easily forego the said amount and stay put in U. S. A. . So in order to secure the presence of the accused back in India, though he is said to be a student, in my opinion heavy sureties and Bank guarantee have to be taken from him to ensure his return to for taking trial in the case. ( 13 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, regard being had to the status of the accused and his parents, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000,00/- (Rupees two crores only) would be a reasonable amount of security to be taken from the accused as a condition precedent for giving permission to him to leave India. ( 13 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, regard being had to the status of the accused and his parents, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000,00/- (Rupees two crores only) would be a reasonable amount of security to be taken from the accused as a condition precedent for giving permission to him to leave India. ( 14 ) IN the result, Criminal Petition No. 2781 of 2002 filed by the accused is dismissed and Criminal Petition Nos. 3171 and 3354 of 2002 are allowed in part, and the condition imposed by the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, is modified and the following order is passed:"the accused would be permitted to leave India for U. S. A. on condition of his executing a Bond for Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores only) and on his furnishing a Bank guarantee for the said sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores only) to the satisfaction of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and on further condition of Mohd. Aslam Hussain, s/o. Mohd. Iqbal Hussain, and Sai Sekhar, s/o. Raja Rao, whose names are furnished by the learned counsel for the accused, executing Bonds for Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) each and depositing the title deeds of their properties with the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, with an undertaking to see that the accused would be back in India before 07-10-2002. The accused who would be permitted to leave India should return to India on or before 07-10-2002. As and when the accused furnishes the Bank guarantee and executes the Bond with sureties as directed above, the Passport of the accused shall be released to him. On his return the accused should redeposit his passport before the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad on 8-10-2002. "