Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 104 (AP)

Sabbarapu Prasanna Kumar v. State of A. P.

2019-06-28

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2019
ORDER : M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. 1. This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C.") to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 167 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakol. West Godavari, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 427 and 500 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C."). 2. The respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint before Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakol against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 427 and 500 read with 34 of I.P.C. alleging that the marriage of the 2"'' daughter of the respondent No. 2 was settled with the petitioner No. 1 on 6-2-2011 and after compliance of necessary formalities, petitioners did not agree for the marriage. Petitioner No. 1/accused No. 1 informed the same over telephone. Though the respondent No. 2 spent Rs. 50,000/- towards betrothal function, the petitioners did not agree for the marriage. Thus, the act of the petitioners constitute offence punishable under Sections 420, 427 and 500 of IPC which was referred to police by exercising power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the same was registered as a case in Crime No. 33 of 2011 of Achanta Police Station. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Palakol and the same was registered as C.C. No. 167 of 2011. 3. The petitioners filed the present petition on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute offence punishable under Sections 420, 427 and 500 read with 34 of I.P.C. and that the complaint is filed only to drag the petitioners to the Court for one reason or the other and that too the breach of promise made at the time of betrothal do not constitute offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and requested to quash the proceedings. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, during hearing, while reiterating the contentions urged in the petition placed reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in "Varthya Shanker v. State of Telangana, 2019 (1) ALT (Crl.) 460 (A.P.) : (2018) Supreme 318 (AP)". 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 opposed the petition. 6. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, during hearing, while reiterating the contentions urged in the petition placed reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in "Varthya Shanker v. State of Telangana, 2019 (1) ALT (Crl.) 460 (A.P.) : (2018) Supreme 318 (AP)". 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 opposed the petition. 6. The genesis for the dispute is settlement of marriage of accused No. 1 with the 2nd daughter of respondent No. 2 and after performing necessary formalities like betrothal, petitioners refused to perform the marriage of accused No. 1 with the 2nd daughter of respondent No. 2. The alleged performance of betrothal and exchange of betel leaves etc., do not create any contractual obligation between the parties to the function and at best it may create moral obligation. Even otherwise, such acts do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. as held in "Varthya Shanker v. State of Telangana" 2019 (1) ALT (Crl.) 460 (A.P.) : (2018) Supreme 318 (AP) (supra). Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. are liable to be quashed by applying the principle laid down in the above judgment. 7. The other offence allegedly committed by the petitioners is punishable under Section 427 of I.P.C. Section 427 of I.P.C. deals with mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees. The word "mischief" is defined under Section 425 of I.P.C. and the same is extracted hereunder. "425. Mischief:- Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief." 8. It is the contention of the respondent No. 2 that on account of settlement of marriage, performance betrothal lowers the prestige of respondent No. 2 and they incurred not less than Rs. 50,000/- for celebration of betrothal. Even otherwise, such acts do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. as held in "Varthya Shanker v. State of Telangana" 2019 (1) ALT (Crl.) 460 (A.P.) : (2018) Supreme 318 (AP) (supra). 50,000/- for celebration of betrothal. Even otherwise, such acts do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. as held in "Varthya Shanker v. State of Telangana" 2019 (1) ALT (Crl.) 460 (A.P.) : (2018) Supreme 318 (AP) (supra). Celebration of betrothal function etc., would not cause any injury to the person or diminish the value of the respondent No. 2 to constitute the offence punishable under Section 427 of I.P.C. 9. In "State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335" the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with male fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 10. When the allegations made in the complaint, if accepted on their face value, which would not constitute any offence and if they made to wreck vengeance against the petitioners, as per guideline No.7 of guidelines formulated in "State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal" 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 (supra), the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 427 of I.P.C. are liable to be quashed by applying the principle laid down in "State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal" 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 (supra). 11. The other offence allegedly committed by the petitioners is punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C. Section 500 of I.P.C. deals with punishment for defamation. 12. The word 'defamation' is defined under Section 499 of I.P.C, which is as follows: "499. Defamation:- Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person. Explanation 1:- It may amount' to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 1:- It may amount' to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2:- It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3:- An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4:- No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful." 13. Even if the allegations made in the charge sheet coupled with the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. are taken on their face value, none of the allegations would consulate an offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C. are liable to be quashed. 14. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No. 167 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakol, West Godavari. are hereby quashed. 15. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.