Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID THURSDAY, THE4H DAY OF DECEMBER201413TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 158 of 2013 ----------------------- AGAINST CC5532012 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NILAMBUR CRIME NO. 443/2012 OF NILAMBUR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM PETITIONERS: ------------- 1. KUNHIMUHAMMED, S/O.MUHAMMED, ARIPRA HOUSE, MUKKATTA, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. AYISHA, W/O.KUNHUMUHAMMED, ARIPRA HOUSE, MUKKATTA, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3. FASEELA, D/O.KUNHUMUHAMMED, ARIPRA HOUSE, MUKKATTA, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA KOCHI-31 - THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT2 ANEES, S/O.MUHAMMED, THEKKARATHODIKA HOUSE, CHERUVATHUMKUNDU, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRCT, PIN - 679 329 R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN R2 BY ADV. SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0412-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 158 of 2013 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A - COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.443/2012 OF THE NILAMBUR POLICE STATION AND THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE2D RESPONDENT DATED265-2012 ANNEXURE-B - COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CRIME NO.443/2012 OF THE NILAMBUR POLICE STATION RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab P.UBAID, J.
--------------------------------------- Crl.M.C No.158 of 2013 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2014 ORDER
A girl and her parents are being prosecuted under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, on a complaint made by the 2nd respondent herein before the Nilambur Police, that he was cheated by that girl and her parents by their dishonest withdrawal from a marriage agreement. Annexure A4 is the complaint made by the 2nd respondent before the police, Annexure A3 is the first information report registered by the police under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and Annexure B is the final report submitted by the police before court under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Annexure A4 complaint alleges that the 3rd petitioner herein agreed to marry the petitioner with the consent and blessings of her parents, and betrothal ceremony was accordingly conducted on 4.5.2012. Some persons on both sides participated in the said function, and they decided to have the marriage solemnised on 24.5.2012. The complainant alleges that later the lady and her parents withdrew from their promise, and thus humiliated the petitioner, Crl.M.C No.158 of 2013 2 and also caused wrongful loss to him. The complainant further alleges that believing the words of the girl and her parents he spent huge amount for renovation of his house, for purchasing textile and fancy items for the girl, for purchasing furniture items etc. Thus he had to spend a total amount of 1,40,000/-. Apart from this huge expenses he met, he and his family were also humiliated in society. The said prosecution now pending against the petitioners as C.C No.553/2012 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur is sought to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that a mere withdrawal from marriage promise will not attract the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and that necessary elements and ingredients of the said offence are not there, in the complaint made by the 2nd respondent.
2. I heard both sides and perused the entire materials including the complaint made by the 2nd respondent before the police. The case of the petitioners is that betrothal was in fact made as stated in the complaint, and both the parties had also decided to solemnize the marriage on 24.5.2012. But later, on enquiry, the petitioners learnt that the 2nd respondent is Crl.M.C No.158 of 2013 3 not a man of good character, and that it would be unsafe to enter a marital tie with him. Finding that she may not have a happy and peaceful matrimony with the 2nd respondent, the 3rd petitioner decided to withdraw from the promise, and accordingly she and her parents informed the 2nd respondent that they are not willing for the agreed marriage.
3. On a perusal of the Annexure 4 complaint I find that the main grievance and definite allegation of the 2nd respondent is that he had to spend a huge amount for making necessary arrangements, including purchase of furniture, textile goods, renovation of house etc. and that he was also humiliated by the withdrawal made by the petitioners. On a careful examination of the complaint I do not find anything definite to attract the necessary elements and ingredients of the offence of cheating defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code and made punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is settled that a mere withdrawal from a promise of marriage will not attract prosecution under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In an unreported case Crl.M.C No.783/2005 this Court had occasion to consider such a situation. A learned Single Judge of this Court held in the said case that on such Crl.M.C No.158 of 2013 4 allegations or on such facts and circumstances alleging withdrawal from a promise of marriage, a prosecution under Sections 419 and 420 cannot be sustained. In another case, Crl.M.C No.1035/2011 also another learned Single Judge of this Court held that such allegations will not invite a prosecution under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. As observed earlier the main grievance of the 2nd respondent appears to be that he had to spend huge amount. The allegations made in the complaint will invite only civil consequences. If at all the 2nd respondent lost something, or he sustained some wrongful loss, he will have to proceed in civil action for appropriate relief. To bring a prosecution under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code something more is required. Mere withdrawal from a promise of marriage will not by itself attract Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. A perusal of Annexure 4 complaint shows that the main grievance of the complainant is that he has sustained some loss. The whole complaint, except a sentence at the last, is on the expenses met by him for different purposes. The complaint does not contain all the necessary elements and ingredients of the offence of cheating. Of course disposal of this matter will not affect the Crl.M.C No.158 of 2013 5 right of the 2nd respondent to pursue appropriate relief in civil action. I find that the police registered the crime and also made investigation without application of mind. I find that continuance of this prosecution will be abuse of process of court. Thus I find that this prosecution is liable to be quashed. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners in C.C. No.553/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the petitioners will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by them will stand discharged. P.UBAID JUDGE ab