THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.6780 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.207 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam. The petitioners are A2 to A4 and the second respondent is the defacto complainant in the calendar case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as they arrayed in the calendar case. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: On 30.8.2005 at 10.00 hrs. the defacto complainant lodged a report to the Police Station stating that her daughter Gundoju Aparna Devi @ Aparna, aged 19 years left the house on 13.8.2005 in the evening to have iron to her clothes, but she did not return back. Basing on the above report, the police registered the case in Cr.No.95/05 under caption ‘Girl Missing’ and investigated the matter and filed charge sheet before the Court stating that while making efforts on 27.9.2005, the missing girl was traced at Warangal and she was brought to Venkatapuram Police Station along with A1 and recorded the statement of the victim girl, in which she stated that A1 married her and the parents and sister of A1 forced her to remove the ‘Mangala Suthra’ from her neck and A1 who married her is now denying about their marriage. Basing on her statement, the police altered the section of law from ‘girl missing’ case to one under Sections 294(b), 417 and 506 IPC and arrested A1 and sent him to judicial custody. It is contended on behalf of A2 to A4 that even supposing that the allegations made by the prosecution are true, it does not disclose that A2 to A4 committed the alleged offences and hence, the proceedings insofar as they are concerned, are liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant have submitted that the allegations made against A2 to A4 attract the alleged offence and it is necessary to conduct the trial of the case to establish the complicity of A2 to A4 in the matter. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings in the calendar case. It is pertinent to note here that the main allegations are made against A1 in the case with reference to the alleged offence and even supposing that A2 to A4 who happened to be the relatives of A1, did so those acts do not constitute any offence and further there are no clear allegations of intimidation by A2 to A4 supported by record. Therefore, it appears that a false case was foisted against A2 to A4 and consequently the continuation of the case against them is nothing but abusing the process of law. Ultimately, the proceedings against A2 to A4 are liable to be quashed. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in the calendar case are quashed insofar as A2 to A4 are concerned. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 14-10-2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.6780 of 2008 14.10.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.6780 of 2008 Date: 14th October, 2011 Between: Bachu Jagan Mohan Rao & others. .. Petitioners/A2 to A4 And State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another. .. Respondents