IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6328 OF 2007 Between: S. Bhoopathi ..... Petitioner/Sole Accused AND 1. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, Through Station House Officer, P.S. Matwada, Warangal. 2. Smt. Cholleti Padma ..... Respondents/Complainant The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner herein to quash P.R.C.No.59 of 2007, on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Warangal, registered for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. 2. The allegation in the complaint would go to show that on 03.08.2007, at Central Crime Zone, Matwada Police Station, the petitioner called the second respondent herein to the Police Station while she was attending to the EMCET Bandobasthu duty at Polytechnic College, Warangal. Accordingly, she obtained permission from the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Sri Srinivas, and went to the Mathwada Police Station. Then the petitioner closed the doors and began to harass her in several ways and asked her to spend her life for that night with him to participate in sexual intercourse so that he will look after her in the near future, failing which he would commit rape on her forcibly and he would take the photographs of her in naked form. She resisted the same and at that time, the petitioner caught hold of her hand and pulled her with a malafide intention and pressed her chest. She resisted the same and came out of the room. Immediately, she reported about the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on phone. As the police did not take any action, she approached the District Legal Services Authority, Warangal, finally and filed a complaint against the petitioner. In the mean time, the Deputy Superintendent of Police called her on 15.08.2007 and asked her to withdraw the case, which she had filed before the District Legal Services Authority, Warangal. Hence, the complaint. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that while the second respondent was escorting one Karre Laxmi, she committed theft of gold ornaments of Karre Laxmi on 04.08.2007 and the said fact was not informed to anybody; that however, on 10.08.2007, Karre Laxmi disclosed the facts to the higher officials; that immediately, the petitioner called the second respondent and enquired about the same for which she admitted her guilt and promised to return the stolen articles; that however, the second respondent did not return the stolen articles to Karre Laxmi till 13.08.2007; that on oral complaint made by Karre Laxmi, the Mathwada police registered a case against the second respondent in Crime No.280 of 2007; that as a counter blast to the case registered against the second respondent by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mathwada Police Station, the present complaint is lodged against the petitioner; and therefore, the continuation of the proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent herein contended that a detailed enquiry is conducted for the theft case, which found to be false; that if really, the second respondent has a grouse, she should have reported against the petitioner to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mathwada Police Station, who registered a case against the petitioner but not against the second respondent herein; and that as the allegations in the complaint made out a prima facie cognizable offence, the question of quashing the complaint does not arise. 5. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be exercised by this Court when there is an abuse of process of Court, or to secure the ends of justice, or to give effect to the order under this Code. It is equally well settled that if the allegations in the complaint do not make out a prima facie case of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, then only the question of quashing P.R.C. would arise. When the allegations in the complaint made out a cognizable offence, it is the statutory duty of the police to conduct investigation. At the threshold, it is not desirable to quash the complaint if uncontraverted allegations made out a case punishable under Section 354 IPC. 6. The allegations in the complaint would go to show that on 03.08.2007, while the second respondent herein was attending to the EMCET Bandobasthu duty at Polytechnic, Warangal, she was called by the petitioner herein to the Central Crime Zone, Matwada Police Station. Then the petitioner herein closed the doors and asked the second respondent herein to fulfill his sexual desire, otherwise he would commit rape on her forcibly. When she resisted the same, the petitioner herein caught hold of her hands and pulled her with a malafide intention and pressed her chest. Then she raised cries and came out of the room. Such act alleged against the petitioner would definitely attract prima facie offence under Section 354 IPC. Whoever with an intention to use criminal force against a woman with an intention to outrage the modesty, then it is an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. Whether the present case is foisted against the petitioner herein as a counter blast to the case registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mathwada Police Station, against the second respondent is required to be decided during the course of trial. It is too premature to decide that the present complaint is lodged as a counter blast to the case registered against the second respondent herein by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mathwada Police Station. As the allegations in the complaint made out a prima facie cognizable offence, the question of quashing the complaint does not arise. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 12th October, 2009. KL