1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner/A.1 seeks to quash the proceedings in Crime No.250 of 2013 of Balanagar P.S, Cyberabad.

2. One G.Mallesham, who is doing cloth business in the name and style of M/s. Chitrabhanu Selection is the complainant. His case is that A.1 who is an IRS Officer used to visit his shop and gradually he developed intimacy with his daughter Vani who was an Engineering Graduate and preparing for Civil Services Examination. Under the guise of helping her in preparation of Civil Services Examination, he trapped her in a love affair since 2006 which the complainant could not detect and had only come to know much later through his daughter in 2012. During 2012 when he was finalizing marriage alliance for her, he came to know that A.1 became furious and abused her and bet her at his residence in Srinagar Colony questioning as to how she could think of marrying someone else, when he was there to marry her. After that A.1 was repeatedly threatening her to come away and marry him and he used to physically and mentally torture her. He was also threatening the complainant and his family members by visiting their house. The complainant recorded the acts of A.1 in digital camera fixed in his shop and home. It is further alleged that in the month of September, 2012 A.1 accompanied by A.4, who is the Inspector of Police, Balanagar P.S and A.2 came to the residence of the complainant in the night at about 11:30 p.m in an inebriated condition and brought a bottle of liquor along with him and consumed it in their house and thereafter created nuisance by abusing his daughter, wife and younger daughter in a most filthy language and further, A.1 spit on the face of his second daughter and kicked her in front of his family members and outraged the modesty of his wife in the presence of A.4 and others. Not content, on the next day morning A.1 along with A.2 came to their house with a revolver and threatened the complainant and his family members at the point of revolver and forcibly tonsured the head of his daughter—Vani proclaiming that he did it so that nobody should come forward to marry her and on the same day evening A.1, A.2 and A.4 came to his residence and threatened him to pay Rs.25 Lakhs on the ground that A.1 spent about Rs.25 Lakhs for the selection of his daughter in Group I Services and when complainant refused, he threatened that he would see the end of complainant and his family members. Further A.2 and A.3 came to the residence of complainant on 12th and 13th of May, 2013 and threatened with dire consequences if they failed to compromise with the issue and go ahead with lodging complaint with the police.

The investigation is reported to be pending.

3. Heard.

4. Denying the charges learned counsel for petitioner/A.1 prayed for quashment of proceedings on the main plank of argument that with the same allegations, the daughter of complainant—Vani gave report to Police of Bowenpally P.S against the present A.1 to A.4 and on 20.05.2013 police registered a case in Crime No.216 of 2013 for the offences under Sec.448, 417, 420, 387, 354, 354(A), 355, 506, 509, 323, 120(B) r/w 34 IPC and Sec.25 of Arms Act and investigation is pending in that matter and in that case the petitioner/A.1 obtained anticipatory bail and in view of the same, the present Crime No.250 of 2013 with the same set of allegations is not maintainable under law and hence the proceedings may be quashed.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.

6. In the light of above rival arguments, the point for determination is:

“Whether there are merits in this petition to allow?”

7. POINT: There can be no demur that perusal of FIR No.250 of 2013 shows that it contains strong prima facie allegations against all the accused. Be that it may, when the allegations in FIR No.250 of 2013 and allegations in FIR No.216 of 2013 a copy of which is filed by the petitioner, are compared, they would show that both the FIRs