Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 567 (AP)

ABHINAYA v. GANDHI SMARAKA SAMITHI

2007-06-19

K.C.BHANU

body2007
( 1 ) THIS Criminal Petition is fiied by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 77 of 2006 on the file of the 1st additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopeta for the offences under Sections 292 and 293 ipc and Sections 6 and 7 of Indecent representation of Women (Prohibition act of 1986 ). ( 2 ) PETITIONER herein is A-2 in the above criminal case. ( 3 ) IT is alleged in the private complaint filed by the defacto complainant that the mini still photograph of the petitioner was blown-up in the big sizes which were published in Sitara cine weekly Vasundara Publications run by a-1. On a private complaint, a case in C. C. No. 77 of 2006 was numbered before the 1s! additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopeta for the above said offences. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the said proceedings. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel. ( 5 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a cine actress and she acted in the film of 'gopalam' and the said film was censored by the Censor board and the said film is being exhibited at several theatres in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the provisions of Sections 292 and 293 ipc are not applicable to her as she is not the editor or publisher of the Sitara Cine weekly and Vasundara Publications, Hyderabad and similarly Sections 6 and 7 of Indecent representation of Women (Prohibition) Act of 1986 are equally not applicable as her photograph was published by the above publishers without her knowledge and consent and therefore, he seeks to quash the proceedings initiated against her. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, it is opposed by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that since the blown up photographs of the petitioner would attract Sections 292 and 293 I. P. C. and also Sections 6 and 7 of Indecent representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 in which a prima faciecase is made out, the question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, a blown up photograph of the petitioner has been published in the Sitara weekly which is a cine Maxine. Admittedly, she has not given that photograph to the management of the Sitara Weekly. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, a blown up photograph of the petitioner has been published in the Sitara weekly which is a cine Maxine. Admittedly, she has not given that photograph to the management of the Sitara Weekly. The said photograph was taken admittedly during the course of shooting of the film 'gopalam'. It is not in dispute before this Court that the Censor board has not given 'u Certificate. ( 8 ) IN the absence of any knowledge or consent of the petitioner. I feel that the allegations made in the complaint do not attract the provisions of the above Sections and thereby, she cannot be held responsible for the above alleged offences. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings against her is nothing but an abuse of process of law and hence, the same is liable to be quashed. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C. C. No. 77 of 2006, are hereby quashed. .