Telangana High Court
Allu Keshava Rao 2 Others vs The State Of Telangana Another on 11 March, 2022
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5348 of 2016
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioners-A2 to A4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in SC No.211 of 2016 on the file of II Additional Special Judge (for Women), Miyapur, Cyberabad.
2. The case of the petitioners in brief was that the 2nd respondent - de facto complainant lodged a report before the police, KPHB Colony, Cyberabad on 02.02.2015 at 10.00 PM alleging that A1 who was working as a Software Engineer in TCS, Madhapur, native of Kothavalasa village Vizianagaram District, A.P. was her distant relative, he proposed to her stating that he was in love with her and she accepted it. He made her to believe that he would marry her by talking to his parents and by telling deceitful words, he exploited her physically, due to which, she became pregnant twice. He gave some medicines for removal of pregnancy. When she insisted for marriage, A1 stated that his parents and his junior paternal uncle were not accepting for marriage. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.95 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 313 read with 109 IPC and after completing investigation, filed charge sheet before the Court which was taken cognizance against A1 to A4 and made over to the Sessions Court 2 Dr.GRR,J Crlp.No.5348 of 2016 wherein it was numbered as SC No.211 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Special Judge (for Women).
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were permanent residents of Kothavalasa, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. A1 was residing in Hyderabad and was working as Software employee. The petitioners did not have any knowledge of the relationship of A1 with the 2nd respondent and they were never involved in the life of the 2nd respondent and A1. There were no allegations against them in the complaint and 161 Cr.P.C. statements to attract the offences alleged against them. The police subsequently added their names in the FIR. There were no ingredients in the complaint to bring the allegations within the four corners of Section 109 IPC. Only to put pressure on A1 by yielding to the demands of the 2nd respondent, the police added the names of the petitioners. The petitioners No.1 and 3 were Government Servants hailing from respectable families. They were implicated in the case only to malice their reputation in the society. The petitioners filed Criminal Petition No.921 of 2015 dated 20.02.2015 to quash FIR No.95 of 2015 of 3 Dr.GRR,J Crlp.No.5348 of 2016 KPHB Police Station, Cyberabad and the Court granted interim stay of further proceedings. During the pendency of the said criminal petition, police filed charge sheet showing the petitioners as A2 to A4 in violation of the orders of the Court without any basis and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in SC No.211 of 2015 on the file of II Additional Special Judge.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.
6. Perused the record. The complaint would disclose that A1 was working as a Software Engineer in TCS, Madhapur and the 2nd respondent came in search of a job and both of them moved together closely in Hyderabad. There was no mention of the role played by the petitioners - A2 to A4, parents and junior paternal uncle of A1, in their moving together or A1 exploiting the 2nd respondent sexually or in getting her aborted twice. The only allegation made against them was that A1 was telling her that his parents and his paternal uncle were not accepting for their marriage. The 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses also would not disclose that the petitioners abetted A1 in commission of the alleged offences to involve them by incorporating Section 109 IPC. As the charge sheet, prima facie, would not disclose any specific allegations against the 4 Dr.GRR,J Crlp.No.5348 of 2016 petitioners attracting the above offences, the continuation of proceedings against them is considered as an abuse of process of law.
7. Hence, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners - A2 to A4 in SC No.211 of 2016 on the file of II- Additional Special Judge (for Women), Miyapur, Cyberabad.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J March 11, 2022 KTL