HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5436 OF 2008 DATE: 01-04-2011 BETWEEN: Hasham Hussain. - - - Petitioner/ Accused. AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. - - - Respondents/ Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5436 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash entire proceedings in Crime No.146 of 2008 on the file of Mirchowk police station, Hyderabad, registered for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 506 I.P.C. 2. The petitioner is the accused and the second respondent is the de-facto complainant and the first respondent is the state in the Calendar Case. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Calendar Case. 3. Heard Sri B. Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents-State. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : The de-facto complainant filed a complaint before the Mirchowk police station, Hyderabad, on the ground that on 26-07-2008 when she along with her daughter and the accused who is her husband attended before the Judge, Family Court at Hyderabad, in connection with F.C.O.P. No.222 of 2008 on its file, the accused had taken away the child who was in her lawful custody without any lawful authority and also intimidating her and hence he committed the said offences. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the child has been with the petitioner only and in W.P. No.22743 of 2007 filed by the de-facto complainant against the petitioner under section 226 of the Constitution of India for the protection of the child it is clearly observed on the basis of relevant material that the child is in the custody of the father and as such she could approach the Family Court for obtaining the custody of the child which clearly proves that the child has been in the custody of the petitioner only and there is no basis to say that the child has been in the custody of the de-facto complainant and in fact she also filed F.C.O.P. 222 of 2008 before the Family Court, Hyderabad, for the custody of the child, whereas, before the Judge, Family Court, she also filed complaint to refer the matter to the police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for taking necessary action against the petitioner on the ground of taking away the child from her lawful custody. It is also contended by him that both of them have been living together following a compromise effected between them along with the child. It is further contended by him that in the circumstances stated it is necessary to see that the Criminal proceedings are to be quashed. 6. Therefore, it is to be mainly seen as to whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings? 7. I have gone through the record and I agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It clearly proves prima- facie that the child has been in the custody of the petitioner only and therefore there is no question of the petitioner taking away the child from the lawful custody of the de-facto complainant without any lawful authority. It further shows that the de-facto complainant has initiated false proceedings. Accordingly, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In the result, the criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.146 of 2008 on the file of Mirchowk police station, Hyderabad, are quashed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHANR EDDY, J Dated: 01-04-2011 Dsh.