ORDER : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused seeking quashment of proceedings against him in Crime No.98 of 2020 on the file of Tadepalli Police Station, Guntur Urban District registered for the offences under Sections 448, 354, 354A, 354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.[ for short ‘IPC’] 2. The facts of the case, in epitome, are as follows: a. Marriage between Sujatha, who is the eldest daughter of Respondent No.2 was performed with one Valaparla Nagaraju, who is the resident of Brahmanandapuram in May, 2014. The Petitioner/Accused, who is the neighbor of the son-in-law of Respondent No.2, used to harass Sujatha to cooperate with him sexually stating that he would get the Government Housing Scheme in her name. Sujatha used to inform the same to the neighbours. Petitioner used to threaten Sujatha that even before her death, he will meet her sexually. b. As such, Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the Petitioner stating that due to his harassment, Sujatha had committed suicide. The said complaint was registered as a case in Crime No.98 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 448, 354, 354A and 354D IPC against the Petitioner/Accused. Grounds for quashment: 3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him on the following grounds: a. The allegations leveled against the Petitioner are false and incorrect. Purposefully, a false case has been registered with a view to harass the Petitioner and to falsely implicate him to safeguard her son-in-law and others, who are actually responsible for the death of her daughter. b. Prior to the present complaint, in view of the suicide of her daughter, Respondent No.2 also lodged another complaint in Crime No.74 of 2020 against the Petitioner/Accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. After thorough investigation in Crime No.74 of 2020, having found that the husband of Sujatha is the real culprit, Police altered the Section of Law from 306 IPC to 302 and 201 IPC against the husband of the deceased and deleted the name of the Petitioner herein. After thorough investigation in Crime No.74 of 2020, having found that the husband of Sujatha is the real culprit, Police altered the Section of Law from 306 IPC to 302 and 201 IPC against the husband of the deceased and deleted the name of the Petitioner herein. c. Having not satisfied with the deletion of the name of the Petitioner herein, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint against the Petitioner with the very same allegations, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law. d. Petitioner is innocent of the charged leveled against him and he does not know the whereabouts of the deceased. e. Since no complaint was lodged by the deceased during her life time against the Petitioner, Respondent No.2 has no locus standi to lodge the present complaint against the Petitioner. f. The husband of the deceased and Respondent No.2 herein hatched a place and to escape from the offence of murder, lodged this false case by implicating the Petitioner. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri Murali Babu Doma, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition would submit that the Petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case and previously Crime No.74 of 2020 was registered against the Petitioner herein, however, the Police after due investigation found that the husband of the deceased is responsible for her death and filed charge sheet against the husband of the deceased by deleting the name of the Petitioner herein. It is stated that in order to escape from the said case, the husband and mother of the deceased collusively lodged the present complaint with the same set of facts. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2013) 6 SCC 384 . 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel on behalf of Respondent No.2 while praying to dismiss the Petition, would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner for the commission of the alleged offences. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel on behalf of Respondent No.2 while praying to dismiss the Petition, would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner for the commission of the alleged offences. It is also stated that the Section of Law and the allegations leveled against the Petitioner in the earlier crime and the present crime are different. It is contended that there are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner at this stage. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra and Others, Criminal Appeal No.287 of 2009, dt.12.02.2009, T.P.Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala, Criminal Appeal Nos.187-188 of 2017, dt.08.12.2022, Jitendra Panchal v. Intelligence Officer, NCB & Another, Criminal Appeal No.1660 of 2007, dt.03.02.2009 and High Court of Chhattisgarh in Jawahar Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others Criminal Misc.Petition No.260 of 2017, dt.17.05.2019. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor conceded to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Point for Determination: 8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in Crime No.98 of 2020 on the file of Tadepalli Police Station, Guntur Urban District for the offences under Sections 448, 354, 354A, 354D of IPC? Determination by the Court: 9. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 10. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner/ Accused that the Complainant previously lodged a complaint against the Petitioner herein in Crime No.74 of 2020, for the offence under Section 306 IPC, wherein, the Police after due investigation, filed charge sheet against the sonin- law of the Complainant by altering the Section of Law from 306 IPC to 302 and 201 IPC, by deleting the name of the Petitioner therefrom. Learned counsel further contended that, being aggrieved by the deletion of the name of the Petitioner and to save the son-in-law of the Complainant, the present complaint has been lodged against the Petitioner with the same set of facts and hence, the same is liable to be quashed. 11. A keen perusal of the contents of the complaint as well as the charge sheet filed in Crime No.74 of 2020 of Tadepalli Police Station, would clearly show that the Petitioner herein, who is the neighbor of the deceased, used to harass the deceased to cooperate with him sexually stating that he will get the Government Housing Scheme in her name. Petitioner used to threaten Sujatha that even before her death, he will meet her sexually; that the Petitioner herein also used to propagate the rumours that the deceased was having affair with one Yalamanda of their village; that due to the said acts of the Petitioner herein, disputes arose between the deceased and her husband and consequently, the husband of the deceased dropped her at her parental home. There are specific allegations against the Petitioner herein in Crime No.74 of 2020. 12. The crux of the issue in the present case is as to the maintainability of the second FIR on the very same set of facts as alleged in the first complaint, which was lodged by Respondent No.2 herein. There are specific allegations against the Petitioner herein in Crime No.74 of 2020. 12. The crux of the issue in the present case is as to the maintainability of the second FIR on the very same set of facts as alleged in the first complaint, which was lodged by Respondent No.2 herein. It is pertinent to mention here that, Respondent No.2 herein, who is the mother of the deceased, immediately after knowing the incident, presented the information to the Police as to expressing her suspicion that the alleged sexual harassment said to have been committed by the Petitioner herein, made her daughter to commit suicide. Respondent No.2 also made a request to the Police to examine any other reason for the death of her daughter. That being so, within few days of registration of the first FIR, the Police during the course of investigation, having found some incriminating material against the husband of the deceased, the Police produced him before the Court seeking judicial remand, wherein, they have clearly mentioned that the deceased gave information to the Police about the sexual harassment of the Petitioner herein, which was mentioned in the General Diary that they take appropriate action against the Petitioner herein, according to law. Then, the second FIR came into picture emanating from the fresh complaint received from Respondent No.2 herein. 13. It is not the case that the Police, after due investigation, having not found anything adverse against the Petitioner herein, have deleted his name in Crime No.74 of 2020 and added the husband of the deceased as the Accused by altering the Section of Law from Section 306 IPC to Sections 302 and 201 IPC. It is categorically mentioned in the remand report as well as charge sheet relating to Crime No.74 of 2020 about registration of the present crime (Crime No.98 of 2020) against the Petitioner herein for the offences under Sections 448, 354, 354A, 354D IPC and pendency of investigation therein. 14. That being the case, the argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, on the very same set of facts, second FIR has been registered and hence the second FIR has to be quashed, falls to the ground. 14. That being the case, the argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, on the very same set of facts, second FIR has been registered and hence the second FIR has to be quashed, falls to the ground. As the first FIR i.e., Crime No.74 of 2020 is against the husband of the deceased for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, on the fresh complaint coupled with the information, which was given by the deceased and which was entered in the General Diary, the present crime has been registered against the Petitioner herein. 15. In view of the facts that the offences in both the crimes are distinct; that it was clearly mentioned in the remand report in Crime No.74 of 2020 that the deceased had given a report against the Petitioner herein for insulting her modesty, which was entered in the General Diary and that no investigation, so far, has been done against the Petitioner herein with regard to the commission of the offences under Sections 448, 354, 354A, 354D IPC in the earlier crime i.e., Crime No.74 of 2020, there is no hurdle in continuing the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner herein in Crime No.98 of 2020. 16. In such circumstances, the Criminal Petition is disposed of by giving liberty to either of the parties to take appropriate steps for conducting simultaneous trial in both the crimes. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.