THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.Petition No.4261 of 2008 Date: 18.03.2011 Between: Kanjar Surekha … Petitioner/A.2 AND State of A.P., Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.4261 of 2008 ORDER: This is an unfortunate case on two fronts. A young girl of six years was involved as a victim for the offence of the outrage of her modesty. This is the first unfortunate situation. The second unfortunate situation is that the case is against the present petitioner, who is A.2. A.2 is a Pre-Primary School Teacher drawing a salary of Rs.3,225/- according to her pay slip of February, 2008. Alleging that the petitioner-A.2 was involved in the offences, charge sheet was laid against her along with A.1 for the offences under Sections 354 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short). 2. The primary case of the prosecution is that on 28.11.2007 at about 3 p.m., while the six year-old victim girl was returning home from the school in the school van, the first accused, who was an attender-cum-conductor of the van, outraged the modesty of the minor girl by misbehaving with her in an obnoxious manner. It is the further case of the de facto complainant who is the mother of the victim girl that the Principal, A.2 herein and the Correspondent of the school were informed about the conduct of A.1 and that they did not bother to take action against A.1. It is the claim of the de facto complainant that the petitioner thus exposed herself to the liability u/s.212 IPC as well as u/s.354 IPC. 3. Sri B. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no case is made out against the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Pre-Primary School Teacher and one K. Renuka Rau is the Correspondent. The petitioner is not even the Principal of the school. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the first accused behaved in an obnoxious manner with the victim girl and the school did not take action against A.1, the petitioner cannot be made liable for the offence u/s.212 IPC and that where the petitioner is a lady, she cannot be alleged to have committed the offence u/s.354 IPC. 4. The learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner who was present at the scene of offence did not react and did not report to the police and that she thus committed the offence u/s.202 IPC as well as u/s.201 IPC. 5. It may be noticed that the offences levelled against the accused including the petitioner through the charge sheet are u/s.354 and 212 IPC. From the allegations of the charge sheet, prima facie, neither the offence u/s.354 nor the offence u/s.212 IPC is made out against the petitioner. I am not concerned with the question whether any other offence is made out. The petitioner is seeking for the quashing of the proceedings to the extent of the offences u/s.354 and 212 IPC. 6. I wholly agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge sheet does not prima facie disclose either the offence u/s.354 or the offence u/s.212 IPC against the petitioner, who is A.2 in the charge sheet. The proceedings against the petitioner before the trial Court are liable to be quashed to the extent of the offence u/s.354 and 212 IPC. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner u/s.354 and 212 IPC are quashed. It is made clear that the quashing is only in respect of the offences u/s.354 and 212 IPC. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 18.03.2011 Isn