The court ruled that mere allegations of harassment without sufficient evidence do not establish criminal liability under the IPC sections cited, warranting quashing of the FIR.

ORDER :

V. SUJATHA, J.

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.888 of 2019 of Vijayawada city, Patamata Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 385, 506, 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.2 and 3 in the FIR and the 2^nd respondent herein is the defacto complainant. On 28.12.2019, the 2^nd respondent herein has approached the S.H.O., of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada stating that her husband named 'Prem Kumar' works as Rapido Bike Taxi and had taken an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as loan from accused No.1. Though the respondent No.2 and her husband have repaid an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-, the accused No.1 is harassing them for more money, aggrieved by which the husband of the 2^nd respondent has submitted a report through 'Spandana'. It is further stated in the complaint that on 28.12.2019 at 08.00 a.m., the husband of the complainant told the complainant that he would drop their children at school and then go in search of the 1^st accused. Thereafter, the complainant's husband telephoned the complainant at 10.30 a.m., asking the complainant to look after the children well. Subsequently, the complainant's husband posted one video to the complainant's Whatsapp which reveals that he was subjected to mental agony by the 1^st accused and hence he is dying by committing suicide. Stating thus, the complainant had requested the S.H.O., to take appropriate action to find out the whereabouts of the complainant's husband. Two days thereafter, on 31.12.2019, the complainant has again submitted a complaint to the S.I., Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada stating that the complainant has taken Rs.4,00,000/- for construction of house and Rs.2,00,000/- for the sister in law by name Agraharapu Jyothi, totaling Rs.6,00,000/- from the accused No.1 at an interest of Rs.3/- per month. At the time of taking the said amount, the accused No.1 has obtained signatures from the complainant on five blank cheques of Andhra Bank and also obtained signatures as if they have entered into an agreement with respect to the complainant's house. The said interest of Rs.3/- was taken in the first month, which was subsequently changed by the accused No.1 to Rs.10/- by threatening to register the complainant's house in his name, if the amount is not paid with the said interest rate. Subsequently, the complainant has paid Rs.3,00,000/-, and the complainant has been paying Rs.30,000/- every month towards interest for the remaining Rs.3,00,000/- till May, 2019. On 28.05.2019, they have paid an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- towards the principal amount and started paying interest for the remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/- till August, 2019. Thereafter, on 21.08.2019 and 22.08.2019, the accused No.1 has taken an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his mother's eye surgery. Subsequently, the complainant has paid the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- and when the accused No.1 was asked for return of the agreement papers, the accused No.1 has threatened the complainant stating that they still owe the accused No.1 Rs.16,00,000/-.

3. Though the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.12,13,000/- in total, the accused No.1 came to the complainant's house and has abused and threatened with dire consequences. The complainant's husband was also beaten by somebody on 05.11.2019. The accused No.1 has also threatened the complainant and her husband that they would be killed if they won't pay Rs.16,00,000/- by 26.11.2019. As such, the complainant's husband consumed pesticide owing to mental agony and was admitted in hospital for treatment. When a complaint is made in this regard to Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada, police have come to hospital and recorded the statement. After receiving the treatment, the complainant's husband was discharged from the hospital. Two days thereafter, when the complainant and