IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.5682 OF 2010 Between: Chattla Srinaiah …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.5682 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash further proceedings against the petitioner/accused in pursuance of the F.I.R in Cr.No.44 of 2010 of Gudipally Police Station, Nalgonda District. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent, police registered the above case against the petitioner/accused for the offences under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 506 IPC. According to the complainant, on 08.05.2010, during night time, when the complainant was sleeping on a cot in front of her house, the petitioner, who is Sarpanch of the village, and who was having an eye on her, came and attempted to commit rape on her and somehow she escaped from his clutches and the petitioner threatened her with dire consequences and left the place due to intervention of the neighbours. It is further alleged that the petitioner has been harassing the complainant and challenged her that he would some day commit rape on her. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there has been delay of one month in giving the complaint. It is always open to the prosecution to explain the delay. In the present complaint, it is stated that as the petitioner was Sarpanch, the complainant was afraid of giving a complaint and, therefore, she kept quiet and unable to bear the continued harassment, she ultimately gave the complaint on 09.06.2010. 5. The question as to whether or not the said explanation for delay is satisfactory is a matter to be considered by the Court below at the appropriate time. Having regard to the gravity of the nature of the offences alleged and the specific allegations made and the overt acts attributed to the petitioner prima facie attracting the ingredients of the alleged offence, it is considered not a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings in pursuance of the F.I.R in Cr.No.44 of 2010. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations contained in the complaint have to be necessarily come out only after due investigation and, therefore, the matter requires thorough investigation. There are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C 6. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 20th October, 2011 Lrkm