THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.3231 of 2008 (Dated : 23-07-2010) Between: Bollipalli Nageswara Rao S/o Lakshminarayana Chllapalli Mandal, Krishna District. …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P. Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyd. and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.3231 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been taken out by Bollipalli Nageswara Rao under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.14 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda. 2. The 2nd respondent herein presented a report before the Station House Officer, Avanigadda on 20-2-2007 alleging inter alia that the petitioner herein abused her in the name of her caste and pushed her aside by putting his hand on her chest. The S.H.O., Avanigadda registered a case in Crime No.18 of 2007 under Section 354 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of S.C/S.T (P.O.A) Act, 1989. After due investigation, the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Avanigadda filed final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C stating that it is a false case. 3. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent presented a complaint before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda under Section 190(1) Cr.P.C alleging inter alia that when she attended the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda on 20.2.2007 in connection with E.P.No.38 of 2004 in O.S.No.320 of 2002, the petitioner abused her naming her caste and outraged her modesty by placing his hand on her chest and pressing her breasts. 4. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file and recorded the sworn statement of the 2nd respondent and two more witnesses, namely, Udumula Nagarjuna and Udumula Venkateswara Rao. After recording the statements of these three witnesses, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under Section 354 IPC and registered the case as P.R.C.No.14 of 2008. Hence, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the petitioner-accused with a prayer stated supra. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent borrowed Rs.70,000/- on 6.4.2001 and executed a promissory note and since she failed to repay the amount, he filed O.S.No.320 of 2002 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda and obtained a decree for Rs.94,226/-. In spite of the decree, she did not repay the amount, and therefore, he filed E.P.No.38 of 2004 seeking attachment of her salary. The 2nd Respondent also borrowed another sum of Rs.57,000/- from the petitioner on 6.7.2002 and since she failed to pay the amount, the petitioner filed O.S.No.348 of 2004 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda and obtained a decree for Rs.86,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed another E.P.No.49 of 2004 for recovery of the amount and got her salary attached. Learned counsel submits that the 2nd respondent resorted to harass the petitioner by filing a false case as a counter blast to the decrees obtained by the petitioner against her. He would also submit that the earlier report presented by her before the police proved to be false during investigation conducted by the Sub Divisional Police Officer in which case, initiation of criminal proceedings on the basis of the private complaint filed by 2nd respondent on self-same allegations amounts to abuse of process of Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the 2nd respondent-complainant dissatisfied with the final report, filed a private complaint and thereupon, the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statements of 2nd respondent- complainant and two more witnesses and on going through the statements of the witnesses took cognizance for the offence under Section 354 IPC and registered the case as P.R.C.No.14 of 2008 and such is the situation; the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this petition. 8. I have gone through the sworn statements recorded by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda and the complaint being presented by the 2nd respondent. The learned Magistrate has considered the statements of the three witnesses and took cognizance for the offence under Section 354 IPC. There is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C in taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent for the offence under Section 354 IPC. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 23-07-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.3231 of 2008 (Dated : 23-07-2010)