IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4430 of 2009 DATE:26.08.2010 Between: T.C.Siva Kumar …… Petitioner And: State of A.P., rep. By its Public Prosecutor And others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4430 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 506 and 509 I.P.C in C.C. No.282 of 2008 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The petitioner has been working as Head, Department of Community Rehabilitation and Project Management, National Institute of Mentally Handicapped, Secunderabad. The 3rd respondent/defacto-complainant has been working as Assistant Programming Officer in the same institute. As can be seen from allegations in the charge sheet, there are complaints and counter complaints between the two persons and those complaints and counter complaints reached not only Boinapalli Police Station, but also complaints committee of the institute. Thus, hostile affair between the two has been going on since the year 2006. The latest complaint by the 3rd respondent was on 21.02.2008 to the Director in-charge against the petitioner. Thereafter she gave report to the police, which formed basis for the police to file this charge sheet against the petitioner. It is alleged that on 03.03.2008 and 04.03.2008 the petitioner called the 3rd respondent through intercom and scolded her as prostitute and uttered vulgar language against her which is not befitting his official status. 2) Admittedly there are no eye witnesses for the alleged incidents which took place on 03.03.2008 and 04.03.2008. In view of the hostile and hot differences between the two, one cannot infer any sexual harassment for the 3rd respondent within the office. 3) Previously the 3rd respondent filed W.P.No.5524 of 2008 in this Court against the petitioner and other higher officials in the institute complaining that they did not take proper action against the petitioner on her complaints given to the complaints committee. In that writ petition, the 3rd respondent also referred to registration of this crime in F.I.R. No.72/2008 on 05.03.2008. After the 5th respondent therein who is petitioner herein filed counter in the writ petition, the 3rd respondent had chosen to not press the writ petition reporting that the writ petition did not survive and became infructuous. Ultimately the writ petition was dismissed by this Court by order dated 17.11.2008. 4) That apart, the petitioner filed proceedings of the institute dated 30.01.2008 which show that the petitioner was on earned leave for 26 days from 11.02.2008 to 07.03.2008, which period includes the alleged dates of offence in this case. It is contended that the petitioner applied for such leave because he intended to prepare for his promotion test as Director. When the petitioner was not in the office muchless in his seat having access to the intercom, the question of the petitioner indulging in abusing in vulgar language against the 3rd respondent may not arise at all. It is evident that the 3rd respondent got in this case instituted by abusing process of criminal law with a view to settle her private scores against the petitioner. 5) Hence, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.282 of 2008 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 26, 2010 KSH