CRLP/1349/2024 of K.Manmohan Vs The State of Telangana on 20 February 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1493 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District (for short 'the learned trial Court') registered for the offences under Sections 42O,506 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC').

02. Heard Sri B. Balaji, learned counsel, representing Sri Banavath Nageshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Sri S. lRama Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the unofficial responrlent No.2. Perused the record. 0:1. The brief facts of the case are thaton 14.07.2021 at about 12:30 hours, the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the police stating that the marriage of her daughterr was fixed with the petitioner-accused No.2 and that on 07.Ct3.2021 the petitioner-accused No.2 along with his family members came to the house of the respondent No.2 and agreed to perform marriage with her daughter but after eight days the petitioner-accused No.2's family told to her that they had decided to cancel the marriage with her daughter because the petitioner-accused No.2 had received some wrong and dirty messages to his phone about the daughter of the respondent No.2 from unknown WhatsApp number and the same was fonrvarded to her. During the course of investigation, it is found that the accused No.1 had sent those messages to the phone of the petitioner_accused No.2 in view of the previous family disputes with the respondent No.2's family. Hence, the accused persons have committed the alleged offences.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 submitted that he is nothing to do with the alleged offences. The marriage was fixed by the elders and due to misunderstandings the family members of the petitioner had decided to cancel the marriage and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no dishonest.or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner- accused No.2 to cheat the respondent No.2 or her daughter. There are no specific overtacts attributed to the petitioner- accused No.2 in the entire charge sheet. The Police without any proper investigation filed the charge sheet. The contents of the charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 420, 506 of IPC Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2.

05. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 as well as the l,earned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quaslr the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting full- fledged lrial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Crim inal Petition.

06. Having regard to the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the marriage of the petitioner-accused No.2 was fixed with the daughter of the respondent No.2 on

07. O3.2O21 . However, the said marriage was subsequently cancelled by the family members of the petitioner-accused No.2 on account of certain dirty messages allegedly received by the petitioner-accused No.2 through WhatsApp concernirrg the daughter of the respondent No.2.

07. ln the above factual background, the point that arises fcr consideration is whether there are any specific allegations against the petitioner-accused No.2 constituting the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of lPC. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the police conducted a detailed investigation with regard to the mobile devices, including verification of lMEl numbers and phone numbers of the concerned persons, to ascertain the origin of the objectionable messages that allegedly led to the cancetlation of the marriage. The investigation indicates that the accused No.1, who is stated to be a relative of the petitioner-a@used No.2, allegedly sent the said messages to the petitioner-accused No.2 by frequently changing mobile phones and phone numbers, allegedly due to prior family disputes.

08. upon careful consideration of the material placed on record, there is no material to indicate the existence of any dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner-accused No.2 at the inception, so as to attract the offence of cheating under Section 420 lPC. lnsofar as the allegation under Sec'tion 506 IPC is concerned, there are no specific averments detailing the manner in which the petitioner-accused No.2 allegedly caused criminal l&p {!, intimidalion to the respondent No.2 or her family. The material on record, in its entirety, indicates that the dispute primarily arose out of the cancellation of the proposed marriagr:, and the alleged acts are mainly attributed to the conduct of the accused No.1 in view of prior family disputes Therefore, this Court is of the view that the allegations made in the charge sheet, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not disclose the essentia! ingredients constituting the offences under Sections 42O and 506 of IPC insofar as the petitioner-accused No.2 is concerned Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 would amount to an abuse of process cf law and is liable to be quashed.

09. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the crimiral proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 in C.C.No.1493 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrale at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby qrlashed

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed sdr- .C. SULEKHA DEVI ANT REGIST ,,TRUE COPY'/ OFFICER To,

6. Two CD CoPies VH/DL 4l-

1. The XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Upp_erpally, Rajendranagar

2. The Station House Officer, Rajendrinagar Police- Station' Cyberabad

3. Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. one cc to Sri Banavath Nageshwar Rao, Advocate [oPuc] -

5. One CC to Sri s- R"r" Motian Rao, Advocate-LegalAid [ouTI

( HIGH COURT DATED: 2010212026

ORDER

CRLP.No.1349 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ,n'