THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7453 OF 2008 ORDER: The present criminal petition is filed to quash the charge- sheet in Crime No. 86 of 2007 registered under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C’), before the Vayalpad Police Station, pending in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vayalpad. 2. On a complaint lodged by one Thimma Reddigari Aparna, aged 13 years, daughter of Narasimha Reddy, against the petitioner herein for the alleged offence under Section 354 of I.P.C, the police registered a case in Crime No.86 of 2007 for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. Aggrieved with the registration of First Information Report, the present petition is filed to quash the proceedings in crime No.86 of 2007, on the ground that the complaint is motivated and the averments of the complaint did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 354 of I.P.C and the present complaint is filed due to civil disputes pending between the family of the de facto complainant and the petitioner herein. 3. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings in Crime No.86 of 2007?. P O I N T 4. As seen from the record, according to the complaint averments the alleged offence was on 19.09.2007 at 12.00 noon. When the de facto complainant Aparna, aged 13 years, went to her fields for grazing cow, the petitioner-accused Devapatla Viswanatha Reddy came there, caught hold of her, asked her to fulfil his lust and dragged her to nearby bushes and tried to molest her and the de facto complainant escaped from the clutches of the accused and went to her house and informed the matter to her mother and in turn they both informed to P.W.3 by name R. Suryanarayana. Thereafter, they lodged report to the police on 22.09.2007. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is of three fold. Firstly that there are no material particulars; secondly the complaint is motivated and thirdly, there are no ingredients pointed out to constitute an offence under Section 354 of I.P.C as per the statement of L.W.1 and also the witnesses examined by the police. 6. All the aforesaid plea, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner will be decided in due course of trial. Admittedly, the complainant was manhandled by the accused-petitioner on 19.09.2007. The remand report reads that the police seized the jacket of the complainant under the cover of police proceedings. According to the investigation, the jacket of the complainant was torn and she escaped from the clutches of the accused. The truth or otherwise of the case on that score will be decided in due course of trial. Though it is contended that there are civil disputes between the de facto complainant family and the accused themselves, at this juncture, no finding can be given. However, it should be adjudicated in correct perspective in the trial Court. 7. Therefore, in the circumstances, in view of the investigation done by the police as per the remand report and also in view of the seizure of the jacket of the complainant in the police proceedings any finding touching the investigation is premature and as such I see no grounds to quash the proceedings. 8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J March 30, 2011 SP THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7453 OF 2008 March 30, 2011 SP