HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3670 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash proceedings in P.R.C.No.28 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 341, 348, 365, 454, 380, 354, 325, 327, 506 read with 149 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the Petitioner is A.3 the second respondent is the de-facto complainant in the P.R.C. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the P.R.C. 3. The prosecution version is as follows: A.3 is the elder brother of A.1 and A.2 and A.4 is a friend of A.2 and A.5 whereas A.5 is working as police constable in Mothe Police Station, Nalgonda District. There had been love affair between the daughter of A.1 namely Deepti (L.W.4) and M. Vijay Kumar, son of A.1 (L.W.3) which was not liked by A.1. On 27.01.2004 the de-facto complainant informed his son over phone that the daughter of A.1 came to their house and asked him to come to Yellandu, following which the de-facto complainant’s son went to Yellandu on 28.01.2004 and found her there and enquired about the arrival of her at Yellandu for which she replied that unable to bear the torture of her mother and sister she went there. Then she was advised by him and others to go back to her father’s house but she refused. On information about the missing of her, A.1 presented a report at Asifnagar P.S., and the same was registered as girl missing case in Crime No.31 of 2004 on its file. Subsequently when she was traced at the house of de-facto complainant she stated before the S.H.O., Asifnagar P.S., that none kidnapped her and as such further action in the above crime was dropped. Thereafter on 23.02.2004 the son of the de-facto complainant and daughter of A.1 eloped to far of place and informed the same to de-facto complainant and requested to be careful as the parents of her may harass them by visiting their village. On 27.02.2004 A.1, A.2, A.4 and A.5 along with the de-facto complainant and another (L.W.2) visited Bangalore and went to the house of A.3, elder brother of A.1 and A.2, and from there went to Mysore and traced the lovers in a house and caught hold of them. In the meanwhile the police night patrolling party of Vijayanagar P.S., of Mysore went to the gathering and took them all to the police station and enquired the lovers who disclosed that they became majors and they wanted to marry each other and then the girl presented a report. In the meanwhile A.1 and A.3 went to the police station and in the presence of A.1 to A.5 the police informed that the daughter of A.1 informed her decision that she wanted to marry the son of the de-facto complainant but A.1 to A.5 did not agree for that and they also threatened the boy and also the girl with dire consequences and later left the place whereas on 29.02.2004 the police performed the marriage of the boy and the girl. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A.3 that there is no incriminating material against A.3 to prosecute him for the alleged offences and hence accordingly the proceedings in the P.R.C are to be quashed so far as A.3 is concerned. 5. The point for consideration is :Whether sufficient grounds are there in order to allow the petition? 6. POINT:- It is pertinent to note here that there is no incriminating material against A.3 with regards to the kidnapping of the son of the de-fact complainant in connection with his affair with the daughter of first of them whereas it is only alleged that A.3 along with A.1 went to the said police station where A.2, A.4 and A.5 were found and there the police disclosed about the said decision of the daughter of A.1 and the question of performing the marriage between the son of the de-facto complainant and daughter of A.1 which A.1 to A.5 refused and later A.1 to A.5 left the place threatening the son of the de-facto complainant and the daughter of first of them with dire consequences and later on their marriage was performed. None of the criminal provisions concerned in the case are applicable against A.3 in view of the facts of the case. Further the allegation that A.3 along with A.1, A.2, A.4 and A.5 threatened the son of the de-facto complainant and daughter of A.1 in the police station in the presence of police personnel with dire consequences while leaving the police station appears to be prima facie un-natural. If it happened elsewhere that may be taken cognizance of. In any case as none of the offences enumerated can be made applicable to A.3 in the facts and circumstances of the case, accordingly the proceedings are liable to be quashed so far as A.3 is concerned. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against A.3 in P.R.C.No.28 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam are quashed. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 09-09-2011. vjl