HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5976 of 2011 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in P.R.C.No.19 of 2011 on the file of the VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Basing on the complaint dated 6.7.2009 of the 2nd respondent herein, the Inspector of Police, Saidabad P.S., Hyderabad, registered Crime No.259 of 2009 against the petitioners, for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and, after completion of investigation, filed a final report, under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., before the competent Court treating the case as “Lack of Evidence”. Being aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent filed a protest petition before the VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, with a prayer to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. But, the learned Magistrate, after examining the 2nd respondent and her witnesses, has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 376 read with Section 511 of IPC against A.3 and A.4 and Sections 342, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against A.1 to A5 and issued non bailable warrants against them and numbered the same as P.R.C.No.19 of 2011, by docket order dated 15.3.2011. The same is questioned in this criminal petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly contended that when the complainant did not allege any rape either in her complaint dated 6.7.2009 or in the protest petition, the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 376 of IPC. The 2nd respondent was put on notice and she appeared before the Court in person. She stated that the petitioners are continuously harassing her physically and mentally in various aspects, even though they are related to her. This Court is of the view that the present petition is filed only in connection with the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted the petitioners are ready to face trial in so far as the offences under Sections 342, 323 and 506 of IPC are concerned and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners as far as the offence under Section 376 read with 511 of IPC is concerned, as no offence is made out against them. When the submission of the learned counsel was informed to the 2nd respondent, she fairly conceded that trial can be proceeded against the petitioners in so far as the offences under Sections 342, 323 and 506 of IPC are concerned and the proceedings against the petitioners as far as the offence under Section 376 read with 511 of IPC is concerned can be quashed. In view of the above, the cognizance taken against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC is hereby quashed. The learned Magistrate is hereby directed to proceed with the trial as far as the other offences are concerned and complete the trial within a period of six (6) months. Further, the petitioners are hereby directed to appear before the trial Court and file an application seeking to recall the warrants issued against them and, on filing of such application, the learned Magistrate is directed to recall the warrants. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of and miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed shall stand closed. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 10th October, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5976 of 2011 (Disposed of) 10th September, 2011 cbs