THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11206 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner – accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings vide Order in Crl.M.P.No.559 of 2023 in C.C.No.1733 of 2024 on the file of the learned Prl. Judicial Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, Rajendra Nagar, RR District (for short the ‘trial Court’).

2. Heard the submissions of Sri M. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that initially a complaint was lodged against the petitioner and the Police after thorough investigation have filed a final report by closing the case, but a protest petition was filed by the de-facto complainant and arrayed the petitioner as accused No.3. Pursuant to the protest petition, the cognizance is taken against accused No.3 which is not proper. He further submitted that there are no grounds in the protest petition to be allowed and just based on the sworn statement of the de-facto complainant, the present case is registered against accused No.3 by the trial Court. The only allegations leveled against the petitioner herein is that the petitioner has asked her to withdraw the case. With the said allegation, the present case is registered against the petitioner herein. Until the said sworn statement is recorded by the trial Court, there was no case against the petitioner herein. Therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is no reference to the petitioner name in the complaint and the

161 Cr.P.C statement. He submitted to pass appropriate orders.

5. Perused the record.

6. The final report filed by the Police forms a part of record which discloses that the case is closed as there is no evidence collected during the investigation. Pursuant to the final report, a protest petition is filed against accused Nos.1 and 2. A perusal of the complaint points out the allegations that accused Nos.1 and 2 illegally entered into the house of the de-facto complainant, questioned about her parents by taking advantage of their absence and abused the de-facto complainant, misbehaved and threatened her by saying that her parents are not good persons and also that they harmed her physically and tore her clothes and tried to strangulate her. Thus, there is nothing alleged against the petitioner herein in the said complaint, wherein the de-facto complainant has urged to take action against accused Nos.1 and 2. Subsequently, pursuant to the protest petition when the sworn statement was recorded by the trial Court, she has reiterated the contents of the complaint. In addition, she has stated that the petitioner herein has threatened her to take back the criminal case, otherwise they will kidnap her and also threatened her that they would kill her parents. It is based on these allegations that the trial Court has issued summons to the petitioner herein along with accused Nos.1 and accused No.2.

7. The learned Magistrate has observed that “ As seen a prima- facie case is made out for the offences of trespass, outraging the modesty of the victim, thereby attracting the offences under Section 448, 354 and 354-A of IPC.” Hence, this Court is inclined to take cognizance against the accused for the offence under Sections 448, 353 and 353-A of the IPC against accused No.1/Rajiv Chincholi, accused No.2/Kishore Sondankar and accused No.3/Jyothi Chincholi under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C and issue summons to accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 204(1)(a) Cr.P.C on the requisite process and RP filed by the complainant Call on 22.10.2024.

Section is directed to assign CC number as 1733 of 2024.”

8. If at all the said sworn statement is believed to be true, the said statement is recorded on 10.05.2022. The present case