HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2201 of 2010 DATE: 16.11.2011 Between : Narkimelli Dora Babu. …….Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. by the Station House Officer, Iragavaram P.S. & another. …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2201 of 2010 ORDER : This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the crime registered against the petitioner in Crime No.111 of 2008 on the file of Iragavaram Police Station in West Godavari District. The aforesaid crime is registered against the petitioner herein and his father for the alleged offences under Sections 376 and 420 read with 34 of IPC, on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent. The complaint filed by the 2nd respondent is extracted in the first information report issued in the aforesaid crime. I have perused said complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. In the said complaint, it is alleged by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner was in love with her since 2004 and he has promised to marry her after completion of his studies and further asked her to go to gulf countries and work there for some time. It is stated that on the advice of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent/complainant went to gulf and used to send money to the petitioner at his request. It is also stated that before she left to gulf, she had sexual relation with the petitioner and after returning from gulf, when she requested the petitioner to marry her, the petitioner refused to marry her. It is also alleged that on the request of the petitioner, an amount of Rs.55,000/- was also arranged and paid to the petitioner to clear off his debts, which he borrowed for the purpose of his studies. With the aforesaid allegations, she has requested the Police to take action against the petitioner. Based on the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, case is registered in Crime No.111 of 2008 by the Police at P.S. Iragavaram for the alleged offences under Sections 376 and 420 read with 34 of IPC. In this writ petition it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that looking at the complaint as it is, no case is made out, so as to register any crime against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 376 and 420 of IPC. It is stated that the family members of 2nd respondent made a proposal for marriage between the petitioner and 2nd respondent, for which, the petitioner refused, therefore, the aforesaid complaint is foisted so as to harass the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner is a postgraduate, working as a teacher in private school at Narasapuram in West Godavari District and if the investigation is allowed to go on, he will be put to great hardship and it will be abuse of the process of Court. It is also submitted that after giving the complaint, the 2nd respondent herself has left to gulf countries and that itself shows that only to harass the petitioner, the present complaint is filed. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also the counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent that the petitioner has promised to marry the 2nd respondent and sexually exploited her, but he failed to keep up his promise, thus, he cheated the 2nd respondent. It is further submitted that though the petitioner has initially agreed to marry the 2nd respondent, subsequently, by accepting a dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-, he married another lady. It is submitted that as the petitioner has abused the 2nd respondent sexually and thus cheated her, it is a case for investigation by the Police. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, I have also carefully perused the contents of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. Looking at the face value of the contents of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, they do not constitute any offence either under Section 376 or 420 of IPC. If the petitioner has borrowed any money from the 2nd respondent, it is open to the 2nd respondent to take steps for recovery of money, but on the aforesaid ground, and also on the ground that the petitioner had sexual relationship with the 2nd respondent, no investigation can be allowed to be proceeded against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 376 and 420 of IPC. The gist of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent do not attract any of the ingredients as envisaged under Section 375 of IPC, to hold that the petitioner has committed rape on the 2nd respondent. It is not the case of 2nd respondent that the petitioner had sexual relationship with her either against her will or with any coercion. In that view of the matter, as the 2nd respondent is more than 16 years old and in the absence of the ingredients of Section 375 IPC, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed the offence of rape on the 2nd respondent. Equally, there is also no element of cheating as alleged by the 2nd respondent. As it is the case of the petitioner that the proposal of 2nd respondent’s family to marry her was not accepted by the petitioner, it appears, only to harass the petitioner, the said complaint is filed by the 2nd respondent. The specific allegation made against the 2nd respondent that there was a proposal from the family members of the 2nd respondent to perform her marriage with the petitioner, and the further allegation that she has left to gulf countries after filing of complaint with the Police, is also not denied either by way of counter affidavit or during the course of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for 2nd respondent. As it is stated that the petitioner is a postgraduate and is working as a teacher, in the absence of attracting any of the offences even looking at the face value of the contents of the complaint, if the investigation is allowed to go on, the same will be abuse of the process of Court. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that it is evidently a fit case to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Crime No.111 of 2008 on the file of Iragavaram Police Station. For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings in Crime No.111 of 2008 on the file of Iragavaram Police Station of West Godavari District. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th November 2011 ajr