HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5742 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 and 2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 448, 354, 509 IPC in Crime No. 123 of 2009 of Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad. Private complaint filed by the 1st respondent was forwarded by the Magistrate to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and thereupon, the police registered this crime. The petitioners 1 and 2 are stated to be former employees of AWARE Organisation. The 1st respondent claims to be wife of watchman working in the same Organisation. It is alleged that in the absence of her husband, the petitioners 1 and 2 entered into watchmen quarters in AWARE compound, beat the 1st respondent, abused her in filthy language and outraged her modesty by catching hold of her saree. Allegations mentioned in the private complaint do disclose the offences in respect of which the crime was registered on reading of those allegations on their face value. Truth or falsity of the said allegations is a matter which has to be investigated into and decided by the Investigating Officer after collection of evidence during investigation. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that AWARE management got this case and other cases filed against former employees of its organization when they claimed service benefits like arrears of salary, gratuity etc., It is stated that the management gave cheques towards payment of those arrears and that those cheques were dishonoured and that thereupon Uttarapalli M.L.A. addressed a letter to the management to settle the arrears in favour of the former employees and that it provoked the management and made them to get these series of private complaints filed against its former employees and that it is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law. 3. AWARE management is nowhere in the picture in this private complaint or in the crime. It is only stated that the management is behind the 1st respondent/complainant. It is also a matter to be investigated into keeping in mind the background which the petitioners put forward in this petition. But, this court is of the opinion that there are no circumstances which warrant quashing FIR in this crime at its threshold. 4. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. At the same time, the Investigating Officer is directed not to arrest the petitioners 1 and 2 till filing of charge sheet after completion of investigation. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt: 18-11-2010 Mjl/*