HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.770 of 2008 DT.22.07.2010 Minnamreddi Vishnuvardhan Reddy and another …Petitioners V. S..Raja Rajeswari and another … Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.770 of 2008 ORDER:- This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the petitioners/A1 and A2 to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.1330 of 2005 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Crime No.164 of 2005 of IV Town Police Station (Law and Order), Nellore. On the complaint filed by the de facto complainant/1st respondent stating that she is the adopted daughter of one Kandaswamy and after discarded from her adopted father, she was taken care by L.W.2 – Syedapeta Pachaiah Karpagam. L.W.2 is an unmarried woman, working as a teacher and residing at Haranadhapuram, Nellore. Whereas the complainant was staying at Hyderabad at the house of L.W.7 –Sydapeta Pachai Gunavathi since November, 2002 to 2004. A2, who is another maternal aunt of L.W.1, married A1 and they are residing at Plot No.104, Bhanu residency, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. During the stay of L.W.1 from 2003 to 2004 at the house of L.W.7, A1 seduced L.W.1 and had sexual relation with her on the promise that he will marry L.W.1 with the connivance of A2. When L.W.1 requested A1 to marry her, he necked out her from their house with the assistance of A2. Later the elders of L.W.1 i.e., the adopted father and L.W.2 went to the house of accused and requested A1 to marry L.W.1, but they threatened and refused. Later L.W.1 stayed at working women’s hostel at Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad from March 2005 to July 2005. At that time again L.W.1 tried to convince A1 for marriage, but he refused to marry her. Then L.W.1 came to Nellore and stayed with L.W.2. A1 and A2 frequently threatened L.W.1 in telephone that if they reported the matter to police, they will see her end. Therefore, the accused cheated L.W.1-complainant by false promise, cohabited with her and threatened her in dire consequences. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that for the very same offence alleging the very same incident at Hyderabad on 27.06.2003, the 1st respondent/de facto complainant gave a report at Government Railway Police Station, Secunderabad, which was transferred to the Banjara Hills Police Station in Crime No.610 of 2006, in which a charge sheet has been filed for the offence under Section 376 IPC and after filing the charge sheet, III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad committed P.R.C.No.22 of 2007 to the Court of Sessions and the same was numbered as S.C.No.464 of 2007 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, which was now pending trial. For the very same incidents, two reports at two different places cannot be made. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No.1330 of 2005 is an abuse of process and the same is liable to be quashed. Admittedly, the S.C.No.464 of 2007 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad was disposed of after trial, acquitting the accused, holding that P.W.1, who is no other than the complainant/1st respondent in the petition, admitted in the cross-examination that she did not have any relationship with the accused after the year 2003. The F.S.L.Report under Ex.P7 shows that human semen and spermatozoa were detected on item No.1, which is a smear taken from the vagina of P.W.1. The medical report under Ex.P6 show that the vagina of P.W.1 admitted two fingers easily. P.W.6 the Assistant Professor, Gandhi Hospital, who examined P.W.1 noted the history in Ex.P6 that P.W.1 has been participating in intercourse with the accused from 2003 to 2004, at her aunt’s house at Srinagar Colony. Further, the element of cheating cannot be read into the facts of the case, as the allegation of P.W.1 is not that she was cheated and was subjected to her sexual intercourse, but according to her she was raped by the accused. In view of the same, the present complaint filed with a different version namely that the accused cheated her, cannot be accepted and allowing the proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process and the same is liable to be quashed. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 22nd July 2010 lmv