ANNA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No. 2059 of 1999 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, invoke inherent powers for quashing the proceedings.

(2.) A brief resume of background of facts is necessary. The son of the 2nd respondent being the defacto complainant married Laxmi Reddy on 25-6-1997. The 2nd respondent's son was employed in United States of America. It is alleged that the proposal of the marriage took place on the assurance of settling the son of the 2nd respondent in business in U.S.A. It is mentioned in the charge-sheet that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to Laxmi Reddy for the purpose of meeting the expenses to go to Madras and completing the formalities for issuing of Visa. Visa is said to have been issued to Laxmi Reddy only on the basis of her marriage with the son of the 2nd respondent. It is further alleged that Laxmi Reddy went to America and did not go to the house of her husband and stayed at the house of her sister and brother-in-law. After some days she is said to have joined her husband. It is further alleged that she mentally tortured the 2nd respondent's son by writing threatening letters as well as using the telephone for making long calls. Which lead to tenth rank in the State for making long calls. It is also not disputed the fact that she applied for divorce in America. Subsequently, the American Court has granted divorce. It is also an admitted fact that divorce application is also presented in the Family Court at Hyderabad. It is not disputed that the 2nd respondent's son committed suicide subsequently. This court is not concerned with the same. What is alleged in the complaint is as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assails the order on the ground that there is no delivery of property in pursuance of the alleged cheating and the offence under Sec. 420 is not attracted. It is also contended by him that the ingredients do not constitute an offence under Secs. 406 and 506 IPC. In support of his case, he placed reliance in P.S. Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The Public Prosecutor v. Thall Gangadharudu and others and Tulsi Ram and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh.