ORDER : J.M. Khazi, J. Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 9 have filed this petition under section 482 Cr.PC, with the prayer to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in crime No.144/2023 of Ballari Woman PS (Special case No.72/2024) on the file of FTSC-1, Ballari, for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 366, 342, 307 , 376 (2)(n), 109, read with Section 34 of IPC . 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 3. Based on the complaint filed by Ramu Naik father of the prosecutrix, the concerned police have registered case in crime No.144/2023 and after detailed investigation filed a charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 366, 342, 307 , 376 (2)(n), 109, read with Section 34 of IPC . It is the case of the prosecution that at the relevant point of time prosecutrix was studying in first year BA at Narayana College Hyderabad and she was also taking coaching for IAS examination. On 17.08.2023, at 09.00 PM she came to Ballari, as all the family members had planned to visit Tirupati on 18.08.2023. At 12 noon, at the request of her mother, prosecutrix went to a nearby Kirana stores belonging to CW11 to purchase soap and powder for use during traveling. 4. However, even after 01.00 PM, she did not return home and after coming to know about the same, her father i.e., complainant along with CW11 to 15 searched for her at Ballari, Hospete, Guntakall and other places, but did not find her. Suspecting that accused No.1 might have taken her away on the instigation of remaining accused persons, he filed complaint on 19.08.2023. The investigation reveal that on 18.08.2023, while the prosecutrix was proceeding on street near old school building, accused No.1 came there on Honda Livo CBF110G Motor cycle bearing registration No.KA34/EG–1689 and forcefully took away the prosecutrix, by giving threat that if she resist, he would upload the videographs of prosecutrix and himself in a compromising position. 5. The investigation further revealed that accused No.1 brought the prosecutrix to Guntakal railway station. Though they were given tickets to go to Bombay, by mistake accused No.1 and prosecutrix travelled in train to Chennai. 5. The investigation further revealed that accused No.1 brought the prosecutrix to Guntakal railway station. Though they were given tickets to go to Bombay, by mistake accused No.1 and prosecutrix travelled in train to Chennai. At Chennai accused No.1 took room on rent at Kovil Street belonging to CW19 and kept the prosecutrix in the said room under threat. During this period, accused No.1 forcefully had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Accused Nos.2 to 9 helped accused No.1 to abduct and commit rape on the prosecutrix and thereby all the accused have committed the offence punishable under Sections 363 , 366, 342, 307 , 376 (2)(n), 109, read with Section 34 of IPC . 6. Accused Nos.2 to 9 are seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiate against them contending that the complaint does not disclose any offence as alleged by the prosecution. In the missing complaint, the complainant has only suspected accused No.1 to be involved in the missing of his daughter. Nothing is whispered about the involvement of other accused. On 28.08.2023 at 6:30 PM, complainant has filed one more complaint before the woman police station alleging that his father Biliya Naik seen accused No.1 and other accused kidnapping the prosecutrix, but the said statement does not reveal the presence of accused Nos.2 to 9. According to the complainant, Raja Naik and Giri Naik also informed him that they have seen accused Nos.1 to 9 kidnapping the Prosecutrix. If at all complainant's father has seen accused Nos.2 to 9 kidnapping the prosecutrix, complainant would not have kept quite. The complainant has falsely implicated accused Nos.2 to 9. Only to falsely implicated accused Nos.2 to 9, their names have been included. In her statement dated 15.09.2023, the prosecutrix has not whispered about the presence of accused Nos.2 to 9 when she was kidnapped by accused No.1. 6.1. Accused No.2 is a public servant and as on the date of incident, he was on duty. Accused No.8 after completion of her studies was staying in the village. She is also implicated. The medical evidence is negative and falsify the case of the prosecution. Accused No.6 is from different place and accused Nos.8 and 9 are resident of Andhra Pradesh and they are also falsely implicated. Prosecutrix is educated girl and worldly wise. She would not have travelled with accused No.1 without her consent. She is also implicated. The medical evidence is negative and falsify the case of the prosecution. Accused No.6 is from different place and accused Nos.8 and 9 are resident of Andhra Pradesh and they are also falsely implicated. Prosecutrix is educated girl and worldly wise. She would not have travelled with accused No.1 without her consent. She would have resisted accused No.1, taking her in the public places. Only to trouble and harass the accused persons, they have been falsely implicated. The entire charge sheet material indicate that prosecutrix has willingly accompanied the accused No.1 and a false case is fabricated against all the accused persons and hence the petition. 7. In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Shiv Pratap Singh Rana vs State of Madhya Pradesh and anr (Shiv Pratap Singh Rana), 2024 AIAR (Criminal) 715. (ii) Shri Amogh Wadeyar and others vs State of Karnataka and another (Amogh Wadeyar), Crl.P.No.103902/2022 c/w Crl.P.No.100291/2022, dd 17.04.2023. 8. Learned HCGP representing respondent No.1/State filed statement of objections and learned counsel representing a respondent No2-complainant has submitted oral objections, reiterating the charge sheet averments. 9. In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu & Anr vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr (Chilakamrthi Venkateswarlu), Crl.A.No.1082/2019, dated 31.07.2019. (ii) Hazrat Deen Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh and anr ( Hazrat Deen ), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 134. (iii) Shri Rama Naik vs The State of Karnataka and others ( Rama Naik ), W.P. Habeas Corpus No.100023/2023. (iv) Smt Dilshad w/o Maibubsab Jamadar and others vs State of Karnataka and another ( Dilshad ), Crl.P.No.101201/2024, dated 28.10.2024. (v) Shi Dharekrishna s/o Satappa Badaganvi vs Sri Basavaraj Shankar Rathod ( Dhareksrishna ), Crl.P.No.100602/2021, dated 14.11.2024. 10. Heard elaborate arguments of both sides and perused the record. 11. At the outset, it is relevant to note that as on the date of incident i.e., on 18.08.2023, prosecutrix was aged 18 years 15 days. She has given statement before the investigating officer and also her statement is recorded under section 164 Cr.PC by the Judicial Magistrate. In her statement, the prosecutrix has stated that accused No.1 was working with the father of prosecutrix and his family members were also known to the prosecutrix and her family members. She has given statement before the investigating officer and also her statement is recorded under section 164 Cr.PC by the Judicial Magistrate. In her statement, the prosecutrix has stated that accused No.1 was working with the father of prosecutrix and his family members were also known to the prosecutrix and her family members. It appears there was some dispute between the family of accused No.1 and CW12 Raju Naik. Because of it the accused No.1 and his family members forced CW12 Raju Naik and his family members to leave the village after entering huge money from them. CW12 Raju Naik was supported by the father of prosecutrix. 12. There was also talks to marry the prosecutrix to CW12 Raju Naik. Accused No.1 and his family members did not want prosecutrix to marry CW12 Raju Naik as he would become stronger and stand against them. They wanted the prosecutrix to be married to accused No.1 so that it would prevent CW12 Raju Naik marrying the prosecutrix and becoming powerful. In this background, it is at alleged that accused No.1 expressed his desire to marry the prosecutrix, but she did not support him and on the other hand reprimanded him. However, about four months prior to the date of incident, accused No.1 took the prosecutor to his room and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and used to give threat that he is having the video graphs of the said incident and it would be made viral. 13. In this background on 18.08.2023, when prosecutrix went to the Kirana shop to buy soap and other articles, accused No.1 forced her to accompany him. He took her to the Guntakal railway station. While going on the motorbike, accused No.1 spoke to his brother accused No.2 Ramesh Naik and also made her to speak to him. Accused No.2 informed them that he has sent Rs.2,00,000/- and that he would also pay another sum of Rs.20 lakhs and advised them to go somewhere and that CW12 Raju Naik is not a good person and she should not marry him. At Guntakal railway station, a friend of accused No.1 gave them two tickets to go to Bombay and also Rs.2 lakhs. However, by mistake, they boarded a train going to Chennai and reached Chennai. Accused No.1 took a room on rent in Willivakkam area and kept her confined. At Guntakal railway station, a friend of accused No.1 gave them two tickets to go to Bombay and also Rs.2 lakhs. However, by mistake, they boarded a train going to Chennai and reached Chennai. Accused No.1 took a room on rent in Willivakkam area and kept her confined. He was not allowing her to go out and speak to anyone. He committed rape on her against her will. While going out, accused No.1 used to lock the room from outside. 14. Once when he forgot to lock the room from outside, she went out and managed to call her brother. However, when her brother did not pick up the phone, she came back and went inside the room. In the evening, she again called her brother and requested him to send her father. Accordingly, on 09.09.2023 her father came, but accused No.1 gave threat. One Swami Naik also called over phone and gave threat. The neighbouring persons took them to Willivakkam Police station. At the police station, accused No.1 managed to convince the police that they are in love and since she was a major, the police did not allow her father to take her. On 11.09.2023 the investigating officer took the prosecutrix and accused No.1 to the police station on the ground at her father has lodge complaint. She was also produced before the High Court in a Habeas Corpus petition and she expressed her desire to go with her parents and accordingly she was sent with her parents. 15. In the complaint dated 28.08.2023, the complainant has also stated that after the prosecutrix went missing, on 28.08.2023 the complainant came to know from his father and also CW12 Raj Naik, CW13 Giri Naik that when accused No.1 took the prosecutrix on his motorbike, the other accused were also present, and they went away in other vehicles. 16. After conducting detailed investigation, the concerned police have filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 9. There is specific allegations against accused No.1 that after the prosecutrix finished her second PUC and was staying in the house during holidays, accused No.1 committed rape on her and used to give threat that he is having video's and he would make them viral. During the said period, the prosecutrix was a minor. There is specific allegations against accused No.1 that after the prosecutrix finished her second PUC and was staying in the house during holidays, accused No.1 committed rape on her and used to give threat that he is having video's and he would make them viral. During the said period, the prosecutrix was a minor. Though when the incident dated 18.08.2023 took place, the prosecutrix was major having just completed 18 years of age, there are specific allegations made by her that she was abducted by accused No.1 against her wishes and under threat made her to stay in a room and committed the rape against her will. Though on one occasion, she had the opportunity to inform the police, she did not choose to avail the said opportunity, claiming that accused No.1 had given threat to her. However, when in response to the Habeas Corpus petition filed by her father, the concerned police produced her before the High Court, she choose to go with her parents. Later, she has given statements before the concerned police and also before the Judicial Magistrate implicating accused No.1 and his family members. 17. Both prosecutrix and accused are subjected to medical examination. Having regard to the fact that there was long gap between the accused No.1 sexually assaulting her and in her medical examination even though there is no evidence of presence of biological material concerning the accused No.1 on the clothes or person of the prosecutrix, there is evidence to the effect that Hymn is ruptured. The medical opinion state that though there is no evidence of recent forcible penetration, however, sexual assault cannot be ruled out. 18. Regarding involvement of other accused, according to the complainant, through his father and others belatedly came to know about their involvement and filed the complaint. It is for the prosecution to explain the delay at the trial. In the light of the material placed in the charge sheet against the accused persons, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a case for quashing the proceedings against accused Nos.2 to 9. So far as the decisions relied upon by the petitioners are concerned, they are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. So far as the decisions relied upon by the petitioners are concerned, they are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the result, petition fail and accordingly the following; ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 9 under Section 482 of CrPC is here by rejected.