THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6599 of 2008 This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.) for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.71 of 2008 on the file of Mahankali Police Station, Secunderabad. Second respondent herein has filed the private complaint before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad and the same was referred to the police for investigation and report, basing on which, the above said crime was registered. The allegations made in the said complaint are that on 08.12.2007 the accused Nos.1 and 2 came to the house of complainant started misbehaving with his wife Pinki by caught hold of her saree and threatened with dire consequences if the property is not transferred in their name and on hearing the cries and abuses, the complainant who was at Sweet shop in the in the ground floor came to the first floor and on seeing the complainant the accused once again started abusing and threatening the complainant that they will kill him if the property is not transferred immediately in the name of A.2. Subsequently, the complainant gave a complaint to the police and also informed the matter to the elders of the community and the elders pacified the matter, therefore, the complainant and his wife kept quiet without giving any statement to the police thinking that elders will settle the matter. Again on 05.02.2008 at about 09.30 am all the three accused along with anti-social elements came to the house of the complainant and once again threatened both the complainant and his wife with dire consequences and abused him in filthy language and tried to kill the complainant and in the meantime the locality people gathered there and separated them. According to them, the accused have got an evil eye on the property of the complainant. Hence, he has filed the complaint against the accused for the offences under Sections 387, 354 and 307 read with 120 (b) read with 34 IPC. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. No representation on behalf of the respondent No.2. The petitioners’ counsel had pleaded that the alleged incident has taken place on 08.12.2007, but whereas the complaint was filed on 08.02.2008 and the said delay was not explained and the allegations made in the complaint does not constitute any offence against the present petitioners. With regard to the lodging of the complaint, even though the incident was occurred on 08.12.2007 as per the averments made in the complaint as the elders pacified the matter, the complainant and his wife kept quiet without informing the police and subsequently again on 05.02.2008 the accused attacking them and threatening them with dire consequences and threatened to kill them. Therefore, they lodged a complaint with the police. But the police advised the complainant to file a detailed complaint before the Court. Thereupon, they filed private complaint before the concerned Court. Therefore, the reason for the delay was explained by the complainant in his complaint. With regard to the alleged offences, the allegations made in the complaint clearly establishes that the accused have entered into the house of the complainant and tried to outrage the modesty of his wife and threatened to kill them with an intention to grab the property of the complainant and also threatened them unless the property is transferred in the name of A.2, they are going to kill him. Therefore, the allegations made in the complaint, prima-facie, establish the offences against the present petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for quashing of the proceedings as prayed for. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ P.DURGA PRSAD, J 7th April, 2011 KSP