The court quashed the FIR due to vague allegations lacking material evidence, emphasizing the need for specific claims to justify criminal proceedings.

ORDER :

V.Sujatha, J.

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in FIR.No.139 of 2019, on the file of Tirupathi West Police Station, Tirupati Urban District for the offences punishable under Sections 354 D1 (ii) r/w 34 IPC and under Section 67 ITA 2000-2008.

2. The petitioner herein is the accused No.2 and the respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant. The de-facto complainant had lodged a complaint before the Tirupathi West Police Station stating that the marriage of the daughter of the respondent No.2 namely Smt. D.Revathi with Mr. T.Arun Kumar/accused No.1 has been performed on 16.02.2017 as per Hindu rites and customs. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between them, the accused No.1 has filed H.M.O.P.No.38 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor seeking dissolution of marriage and daughter of the complainant has filed a domestic violence case against the 1^st accused and his family members. Subsequently, at the instance of mediators and well wishers, the matter has been settled between the parties before Lok Adalath at Tirupati and on 15.12.2018 an award was passed by the Lok Adalath under section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act , 1987, pursuant to which the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, by an order dated 06.06.2019, has allowed the H.M.O.P., filed by the accused No.1 and the accused No.1 had paid an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the daughter of the respondent No.2, towards full and final settlement and the same was also recorded in the award dated 15.12.2018 passed by the Lok Adalath.

3. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 has lodged the present complaint alleging that at the instigation of the petitioner/accused No.2, the accused No.1 has been sending private photographs of the daughter of the respondent No.2 and also making vulgar comments against her through Face Book Messenger. Basing on the said complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant, the Police had registered a case against the accused vide FIR No.139 of 2019. The present petition has been filed to quash the said FIR.No.139 of 2019.

4. When the petition came up for admission on 14.10.2019, this court has granted interim stay initially for a period of two weeks, which was subsequently extended from time to time.

5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 while reiterating contentions raised in the petition has further contended that the in order to live a peaceful life, the petitioner and the accused No.1 have settled the matter pending before the trial Court by making payment of Rs.12,00,000/- in favour of the daughter of the de-facto complainant towards full and final settlement. But the de-facto complainant with an illegal intention to extract excess amount from the petitioner and his son, had lodged the present complaint with an allegation that at the instigation of the petitioner, the accused No.1 is sending the private photographs of the de-facto complainant’s daughter and also making vulgar comments through Face Book Messenger. But, nowhere in the FIR report, the above stated act of the petitioner and his son was mentioned and further, the petitioner is working as a Head Constable and in order to make the petitioner to lose his job, the de-facto complainant had lodged the present complaint with false allegations. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed against the petitioner/accused No.2.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are allegations as against the petitioner in the complaint. He submits that the provisions of law indicated in the charge sheet may be looked into by the Court to come to a just conclusion with regard to the culpability of the petitioner. As such, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the mater