IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that distinct allegations in separate FIRs can justify the continuation of criminal proceedings.

ORDER :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused seeking quashment of proceedings against him in Crime No.98 of 2020 on the file of Tadepalli Police Station, Guntur Urban District registered for the offences under Sections 448, 354, 354A, 354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.[ for short ‘IPC’]

2. The facts of the case, in epitome, are as follows:

a. Marriage between Sujatha, who is the eldest daughter of Respondent No.2 was performed with one Valaparla Nagaraju, who is the resident of Brahmanandapuram in May, 2014. The Petitioner/Accused, who is the neighbor of the son-in-law of Respondent No.2, used to harass Sujatha to cooperate with him sexually stating that he would get the Government Housing Scheme in her name. Sujatha used to inform the same to the neighbours. Petitioner used to threaten Sujatha that even before her death, he will meet her sexually.

b. As such, Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the Petitioner stating that due to his harassment, Sujatha had committed suicide. The said complaint was registered as a case in Crime No.98 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 448, 354, 354A and 354D IPC against the Petitioner/Accused.

Grounds for quashment:

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him on the following grounds:

a. The allegations leveled against the Petitioner are false and incorrect. Purposefully, a false case has been registered with a view to harass the Petitioner and to falsely implicate him to safeguard her son-in-law and others, who are actually responsible for the death of her daughter.

b. Prior to the present complaint, in view of the suicide of her daughter, Respondent No.2 also lodged another complaint in Crime No.74 of 2020 against the Petitioner/Accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. After thorough investigation in Crime No.74 of 2020, having found that the husband of Sujatha is the real culprit, Police altered the Section of Law from 306 IPC to 302 and 201 IPC against the husband of the deceased and deleted the name of the Petitioner herein.

c. Having not satisfied with the deletion of the name of the Petitioner herein, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint against the Petitioner with the very same allegations, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

d. Petitioner is innocent of the charged leveled against him and he does not know the whereabouts of the deceased.

e. Since no complaint was lodged by the deceased during her life time against the Petitioner, Respondent No.2 has no locus standi to lodge the present complaint against the Petitioner.

f. The husband of the deceased and Respondent No.2 herein hatched a place and to escape from the offence of murder, lodged this false case by implicating the Petitioner.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri Murali Babu Doma, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition would submit that the Petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case and previously Crime No.74 of 2020 was registered against the Petitioner herein, however, the Police after due investigation found that the husband of the deceased is responsible for her death and filed charge sheet against the husband of the deceased by deleting the name of the Petitioner herein. It is stated that in order to escape from the said case, the husband and mother of the deceased collusively lodged the present complaint with the same set of facts. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on