THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.8499 of 2008 Date:02nd November, 2011 Between: Ganjirapalli Srinivasa Rao S/o.Koneswara Rao ..... Petitioner AND 1) The State of A. P. through Station House Officer, Narasaraopet Rural Police Station, Guntur District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor & Anr. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.8499 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed by Ganjirapalli Srinivasa Rao under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceeding in Crime No.144 of 2008, dated 25.08.2008, of Narasaraopet Rural Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offence under Section 366 IPC. 2. The 2nd respondent is the father of N.Aruna, who is a married woman and also mother of two children. He presented a complaint before the 1st Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner herein kidnapped his daughter. The said complaint came to be forwarded to the Station House Officer, Narasaraopet Rural Police Station, Guntur District, and thereupon, the SHO, Narasaraopet Rural P.S. registered a case in Crime No.144 of 2008 for the offence under Section 366 IPC and issued FIR. Hence, this Criminal Petition by the accused in Crime No.144 of 2008 to quash the proceeding therein. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent herein earlier filed a complaint against the petitioner with similar allegations and the said complaint came to be closed as a mistake of fact. The learned counsel took me to the statement of the victim recorded in earlier crime i.e. Crime No.34 of 2007 of Hanuman Junction Police Station, registered for the offence under Section 363 IPC. By referring the said statement, it is contended by the learned counsel that the 2nd respondent foisted a false case against the petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State submits that as on this day, five witnesses have been examined and the victim is not yet traced and because of the interim stay granted by this Court, the Police is not in a position to proceed further to record the statement of the victim. 6. Since the statement of the victim is not recorded as on this day, it cannot be said that the accusations leveled against the petitioner in the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent are false. Once the victim is traced, true version of the incident can be gathered. 7. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Police not to arrest the petitioner till the statement of the victim is recorded. As a sequel to it, interim stay granted on 23.12.2008 stands vacated. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:02nd November, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.8499 of 2008 Date:02nd November, 2011