HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.1516 of 2009 Date:24.01.2011 Between: Smt P. Padmaja ….Petitioner. And: Smt R. Vijaya Laxmi and 2 others. .…. Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.1516 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1183 of 2006 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nampally, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein is the accused Nos.1 and 3 in the above said C.C. The respondent No.2 herein has filed a private complaint against the petitioners and one Rajagopalan for an offence under Sections 109, 120-B, 505, 506 and 507 read with Section 34 IPC alleging that on 14.8.2000 she lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad stating that one Smt R. Vijayalakshmi who is the petitioner No.1 herein working as an Assistant Section Officer in the Secretariat harassed and threatened the complainant on phone that no police will take any action against her for lodging a complaint by the complainant before the Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad on 15.9.1999 at about 8.00 a.m against her husband, beating her brutally and causing grievous hurt and necked her out while threatening her to kill by causing grievous injury and putting her life in danger. The Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad has issued F.I.R No.218 of 1999 on 15.5.1999 and subsequently filed the charge sheet against her husband P. Bhaskar only and not against R. Vijayalakshmi and her father R. Rajagopalan and her mother Smt Rajyalakshmi and the said case was registered as C.C.No.22 of 2000 and it is pending before the II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nampally. The accused No.1 knowing thoroughly the facts instigated the complainant’s husband P. Bhaskar on phone now and then and thereby her husband kept silent for the period and acting at the henchmen of the accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 also pressurising the complainant’s husband who started commending the complainant to extract money and moving with the accused No.1 leaving the complainant apart. According to the complainant, the accused persons started threatening on phone not to give evidence against her husband in the court and if the complainant gives evidences he has to face the consequences. Thereupon, the complainant was subjected to mental agony and could not bear with the insult and humiliation lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad on 14.8.2000 requesting thereunder to initiate action against the accused Nos.1 to 3. The Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad registered the said complaint, but they did not take any action. The atrocities committed by the accused 1 to 3 were witnessed by one K. Chalapathi Rao and Vanka Venkateswrulu as to how the complainant faced the situation due to the influence of the accused Nos.1 to 3. Hence, the complaint. The complaint was originally referred to the Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation and report and the same was registered as Crime No.26 of 2001 by the Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad. According to the 2nd respondent herein as the police have not taken any action against the present petitioner and another Rajagopalan, she has field a protest petition before the III Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and the learned Magistrate by conducting enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C an examined K.S. Chalapati Rao as P.W.2 and M. Gopal as P.W.3. Basing on the sworn statements of P.Ws.1 to 3, the III Metropolitan Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the offence under Section 506 IPC as against the accused 1 and 3 only and ordered for issuance of summons. Aggrieved by the said order of taking cognizance, the petitioner herein who are the accused 1 and 3 before the said III Metropolitan Magistrate has filed the present petition for quashing the proceedings. As per the averments made in the complaint by the defacto-complainant, the present petitioners 1 and 2 are threatening her on phone not to give evidence against her husband in the case filed against him by the complainant. The case filed against the complainant’s husband is numbered as C.C.No.22 of 2000 pending on the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nampally. The P.W.2 K. S. Chalapathi in his sworn statement has stated that there are disputes between the complainant and her husband. The complainant informed him through phone that her husband harassed and beat her to dispose of the property to meet his personal needs and personal expenditure. He is the frequent visitor of Motinagar area where his sister and son were residing and while he is searching house for rent, he found a board for Plot No.82 of Motinagar, he went to inside to enquire about portion for rent. First Rajagopalan shown that house. Meanwhile Rajagopal, D/o. Vijayalakshmi, Rajgopal, wife of Rajyalaxmi came and introduced that Vijayalaxmi is the wife of Bhaskaran who is retired DFO. About five years back while he came to Motinagar, he found Bhaskaran moving along with Vijayalakshmi. The other witness examined as P.W.3 M. Gopal has stated in his sworn statement that he knows the Bhaskar who is the husband of Padmaja. Sri Bhaskar is used to lend money. Then he went to Srinagar colony to the house of Bhaskar to take loan. Bhaskar Rao used to come to his house to collect the loan amount. Whenever Bhaskar Rao used to come to his house he comes along with one lady. When he asked about that women, she stated that she is wife of Bhaskar Rao. Therefore, from the above said sworn statements of both P.Ws.2 and 3, it is evident that one lady present along with Bhaskar is stated to be the wife of Bhaskar. But, the allegations in the complaint with regard to threatening the complainant by A-1 to A-3 on phone with regard to giving evidence against her husband Bhaskar, but the said fact was not spoken by P.Ws.2 and 3. Therefore, the material available on record does not disclose the allegations made in her complaint with regard to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 threatening her over phone. As per the averments made in the complaint, she has lodged a complaint against her husband before the Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad which was registered as F.I.R No.289 of 1999 and subsequently charge sheet was file only against her husband P. Bhaskar. It appears as the police have not field the charge sheet against the present petitioner, she appears to have filed the present complaint by making false allegations against them. Therefore, there is no material before the III Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to take cognizance for the offence under Section 506 IPC against the present petitioners. Therefore, continuation of proceedings in the said C.C.No.1183 of 2006 will amount to harassing the petitioner by the complainant. Therefore, I hold the petitioner is entitled for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.1183 of 2000 pending on the file of III Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1183 of 2006 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad are quashed. _____________________ P.DURGA PRASADJ. Date:24.01.2011 Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.1516 of 2009 Date:24.01.2011 Gk.