IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4304 of 2008 Between: Chowdampalli John @ Anjaneyulu … Petitioner And Kommerla Jnancy John & another. … Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4304 of 2008 ORDER:- 1. The petitioner/A2 is accused of offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Though the first respondent/complainant filed the private complaint under various section of IPC, the Magistrate, after making due enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in which she recorded sworn statements of the complainant and three others, took the case on file for offences under Section 354 IPC against A1 and Section 506 IPC against A1 and A2. A1 is not before this Court in this criminal petition. Therefore, this Court need not go into the details of allegations against A1 under Sections 354 and 506 IPC. The only allegation against A2 in sworn statement of the complainant is to the effect that on the influence of A1, A2 terminated services of the complainant as Teacher and that after ten months when the complainant approached this Court by way of a writ petition, A2 reinstated the complainant into service and that A1 and A2 influenced the complainant to withdraw the pending writ petition. The allegation of A2 influencing the complainant to withdraw the writ petition cannot amount to criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC. There is no question of influencing the complainant to withdraw the writ petition because it is only after reinstatement of the complainant into service, A2 might have requested the complainant to withdraw the writ petition, as the purpose for which the writ petition was filed was fulfilled. It is not the complainant’s case that A2 threatened her with any consequences in case she did not withdraw the writ petition. Taking the allegations of the complainant in her sworn statement for granted, this Court is of the opinion that the said allegations do not attract ingredients of the offence under Section 506 IPC. 2. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing proceedings against the petitioner/A2 in PRC.No.23 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vizianagaram. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: 15.12.2011 ES