THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3009 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings in FIR No.6 of 2010 of Punganur P.S. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Punganur, against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 366, 376, 420, 506 read with 34 IPC, and the same was forwarded to the police by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. Thereupon, the police registered FIR in Crime No.6 of 2010 against the petitioners for the above said offences and took up investigation. It is stated that the investigation is pending. 4. According to the complainant, she was studying II year B.Sc. in H.M. Degree College, Punganur, and the 1st petitioner/A1 was her college-mate, and that on 30.03.2009 at 8.30 A.M. while she was in the college premises, A1 and one Srinu took her in a Tata Sumo in a hurried manner and threatened her with dire consequences if she resisted and that, on reaching Tirupati, A1 and his friends forced the complainant to write a letter addressed to A1 as if she was in love with him and that she would commit suicide if he does not marry her. It is further alleged that A1 prevailed on the complainant and made her submit to his wishes and on 31.03.2009, A2 to A4, along with one Afzal, came to the room and told her that her parents engaged 50 vehicles in search of her and that A1 threatened that nobody would come forward to marry her and she has no alternative except to marry him and so saying, he committed rape on her. It is further alleged that on 01.04.2009, A1, A2 and A4 took her to a house near Masjid in Punganur and A1 and his people forcibly performed Nikah. The parents of the complainant were helpless and could not resist the same. It is further alleged that from 01.04.2009 to 08.04.2009, the complainant was kept in the house of A1 to A3 as if under house arrest. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 08.04.2009, the complainant somehow caught her maternal aunts and elder sister and, with their help, reached her parental house and, on the next day, reported the matter to the Inspector of Police, Punganur, but he tried to pacify the matter. It is further alleged that A1 indulged in bad propaganda against the complainant’s parents in the media and local TV and, together with A2 to A5, started intimidating the complainant, and that she made several representations to the DGP and the SP, Chittoor, but there was no action. It is further alleged that taking lenience of the police, A1 along with others came to the textile shop of her father on 28.12.2009 holding a bottle and threatened to pour acid on the complainant and attempted to enter the residential portion on the upstairs and on the alarm raised by the complainant and her family members, the neighbours gathered and the accused ran away. 5. According to the petitioners, A1 and the de facto complainant were in love with each other and as their parents were not agreeing for their marriage, both of them being majors, entered into marriage on 02.04.2009 at Punganur, with free will and consent, and thereafter, the complainant went to her parents house along with her aunts and did not return and A1 filed O.S.No.229 of 2009 seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the de facto complainant filed O.S.No.51 of 2009 for dissolution of marriage. 6. The petitioners counsel contends that petitioners 2 to 5 have nothing to do with the alleged incidents and the dispute is matrimonial, but a false complaint is filed only to harass the petitioners, at the instance of the parents of the complaint. A2 is the brother and A3 is the sister of A1, and A4 and A5 are maternal uncles of A1, and thus, they are closely related. Specific allegations have been made in the complaint against the petitioners prima facie attracting the ingredients of alleged offences. Truth or otherwise of the same would have to come out necessarily after the investigation is completed. 7. Having regard to the nature of the offences alleged, and in view of the specific allegations made which require a thorough investigation, it is considered not a fit case to quash further proceedings in pursuance of the FIR at this threshold stage by invoking inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds to quash further proceedings in pursuance of FIR No.6 of 2010 against the petitioners. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J October, 2011 KSM