IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 5900 of 2009 Between: VAnkina Chamundeswaranath S/o. V.V.R. Prasada Rao R/o. Flat A-6, Trendset Village, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh through Public Prosecutor 2 Jagupilla Durga Bhavani D/o. Jagupilla Nageswara RAo R/o. 9-65-5, Factory Street, Mahanthipuram, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto quash the proceedings in Cr.No. 368 of 2009 on the file of P.S. Machavaram (Krishna District) , in so far as adding Section 354 IPC R.3. Impleaded as per Court Order dt.6/8/09 in Crl.m.p. 5715/09. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.RAGHUVEER REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: PSR, J. Crl.P.No. 5900 of 2009 O r d e r: This criminal petition under section 482 Crl.P.C., is filed by the petitioner – Vankina Chamundeswaranath seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.368 of 2009 of Machavaram Police station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under sections 354 and 509 IPC. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It is a case where the petitioner allegedly harassed several girl cricketers sexually. 4. The material, prima facie, shows that there was no actual physical assault and acts alleged are mostly indirect acts like sending messages, making telephone calls and holding the hands of the players etc. There are instances of the de facto complainants appearing before this Court and reporting withdrawal of the complaint etc. 5. The matter under went several adjournments. In the circumstances of the case, where the complainant initially gave a complaint, appeared before this court and then withdrawn the complaint, I do not intend to make any comments on the merits of the case. But it is not a case to refuse stay of arrest of the petitioner. The investigation commenced long back; as such a direction to complete the same expeditiously would be appropriate. 6. In the circumstances, the investigating agency is directed to complete the investigation within a period of two weeks from today and take appropriate action on the basis of result of the investigation. Both sides would be at liberty to challenge the final result. Till filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner shall not be arrested. 7. With the above directions, the criminal petition is disposed of. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Dated:21—10—2009. *PV/BVS Note: 1. Dispatch the order by today itself. 2. Communicate the order to the concerned immediately. (BO) PV.