THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.4364 of 2019 on the file of II-Junior Civil Judge cum X Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

2. Heard Mr. Asad Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the present case is filed as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner against the de facto complainant and others and that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the offences under Sections 354-A or 509 IPC as alleged by the de facto complainant. But, just to overcome the case filed against them, the present case has been filed against the petitioner. The learned counsel has further submitted that earlier the de facto complainant and others were found to have siphoned the petitioner’s company confidential information to third parties and therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint against the de facto complainant and others, and thus, the present complaint is lodged bearing grudge against him and therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he has been trying to outrage the modesty of the de facto complainant and further he has not issued the relieving letter to her even after her resignation from his company and is informing the same to the other company where she had found her subsequent employment. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contents of the complaint and the recitals of the charge sheet disclose specific allegations against the petitioner herein. It is alleged that the petitioner used to harass the de facto complainant by touching her physically and once he invited her to Starbucks Café at Hi-tech City and had spoken about her body parts in an objectionable manner and tried to touch her. It is further alleged that in a party arranged by the office at a Pub at Kondapur, he forced her to dance with him and tried to touch her and hug her and thus, she left the company by submitting her resignation on 27.07.2017, but still he had not issued the relieving letter and when she joined in another company, he has informed the said company, where she is presently working, that he has not relieved her so far. Thus, the allegations point out the prima facie case against the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present case is filed as a counter blast to the complaint filed against the de facto complainant on 10.08.2019. The allegations in the said complaint are that the de facto complainant herein and others have illegally copied and transferred proprietary/confidential information without any authority to themselves and their associates with an intention to mis-use the same illegally to benefit themselves. Thus, FIR No.468 of 2017 was registered against the de facto complainant and others. Now, the present complaint is lodged under Sections 354-A and 509 IPC against the petitioner based on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant. Thus, there are case and counter case filed by both the parties against each other though not based on the same incident. The truth or the falsity of the allegations is to be culled out after a full-fledged trial. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to direct the trail court to dispose of the matter at the earliest and dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the trial court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court, provided he is represented by a cou