Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 728 (AP)

P. Srinivasula Reddy v. Bathina Rajyalakshmi

2025-06-18

HARINATH N.

body2025
ORDER : HARINATH.N, J. 1. The petitioner is seeking quash of CC.No.1474 of 2022 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. The petitioner is facing charges for offences under Sections 323, 506, 509, 417 and 420 of IPC. 2. The 1 st respondent has filed a complaint dated 26.07.2020 against the petitioner and Dargamitta Police have registered Crime No.381 of 2020. The allegations against the petitioner in the complaint are that the 1 st respondent worked as Computer Operator during the year 2008 to 2011 in the office of P.V.Ramana Reddy. It is stated in the complaint that the petitioner herein who is the son of P.V.Ramana Reddy proposed to marry the petitioner and on the promise of marriage he had exploited the petitioner physically. It is also stated in the complaint that the petitioner was already married and that he was also instrumental in spoiling the marriage proposals received by the 1 st respondent on the pretext of marrying the 1 st respondent. It is also stated in the complaint that the 1 st respondent approached the petitioner in his office on 03.02.2020 and raised the issue of marriage with the petitioner. It is also stated in the complaint that the petitioner had physically abused the 1 st respondent and necked her out from his office. 3. The police during the course of investigation also recorded the Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of the 1 st respondent. After completion of investigation the police have filed a charge sheet. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complaint is filed in the year 2020 and the complainant refers to alleged incidents which happened 2008 to 2011. The cause of action for filing the complaint is taken as 03.02.2020, on which date it is alleged that the 1 st respondent approached the petitioner at his office regarding the marriage of the petitioner and the 1 st respondent which according to the 1 st respondent was promised by the petitioner while she was working as a Computer Operator during the period 2008 to 2011 in the petitioner’s father’s office. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 1 st respondent in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., also disclosed that the petitioner was already married when he allegedly indulged in physically exploiting the 1 st respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 1 st respondent in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., also disclosed that the petitioner was already married when he allegedly indulged in physically exploiting the 1 st respondent. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the relationship between the petitioner and the 1 st respondent was consensual relationship which happened prior to 2020. It is also submitted that the 1 st respondent even as per her statement before the Police or the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., had categorically stated that she was aware of the marital status of the petitioner before the petitioner indulged in alleged physical and sexual exploitation of the 1 st respondent. In such circumstances the filing of a case relating to incidents which allegedly happened about eight years prior to filing of the complaint cannot be entertained. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent submits that he has filed Vakalat along with no objection certificate and also filed a counter on 22.08.2023. It is submitted that the 1 st respondent has sought for no objection certificate and on her request the learned counsel on record has sent the no objection certificate along with the entire case bundle which was duly returned as unserved with an endorsement refused. The returned postal cover along with the bundle is filed before this Court along with memo. There is no representation for the 1 st respondent today. This Court has to proceed with the matter duly taking into consideration, the counter filed and the documents filed along with the counter. 7. The 1 st respondent had filed a counter and also submitted the whatsapp chat between the petitioner and the 1 st respondent. The said whatsapp chat is not part of record filed along with the charge sheet, as such, this Court cannot consider the same for any purpose. 8. It is also submitted in the counter that the allegations are specifically made and the trial Court would have to consider the veracity of the allegations after a full-fledged trial. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material on record. 10. The primary allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner had promised to marry the 1 st respondent and sexually exploited the 1 st respondent. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material on record. 10. The primary allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner had promised to marry the 1 st respondent and sexually exploited the 1 st respondent. It is also stated that the petitioner and the 1 st respondent indulged in physical relationship on several occasions at various places. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was already married by the time the alleged physical exploitation occurred. The 1 st respondent was aware that the petitioner was already married when she was working as a Computer Operator in the office of the petitioner’s father. The complaint also would reveal that the 1 st respondent worked in the office of the petitioner’s father during the year 2008 to 2011. The 1 st respondent in the Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement had also stated that she was removed from the office of the petitioner’s father after the affair between the petitioner and the 1 st respondent came to the knowledge of the petitioner’s wife. 11. There is no explanation as to what prompted the 1 st respondent to stay from 2011 onwards till 2020 when she allegedly approached the petitioner and questioned him regarding the alleged promise of marriage. The statements of the witnesses also do not instill the confidence of this Court. LW.2 is the mother of the 1 st respondent. LWs.3 to 6 are cited as independent witnesses, however, none of the witnesses speak about the alleged physical intimacy between the petitioner and the 1 st respondent to their personal knowledge. The independent witnesses state that they were informed by the 1 st respondent. The independent witnesses were the office staff of the petitioner’s staff. None of them have any personal knowledge. Their statement that the petitioner was closely moving with the 1 st respondent. In such circumstances the allegations against the petitioner cannot sustain the scrutiny of trial. That apart, relegating this matter for trial before the learned Magistrate would only render in wastage of judicial time. 12. The charges under Sections 323, 506, 509, 417 and 420 of IPC against the petitioner would have to be considered as omnibus allegations without any specific details. That apart, relegating this matter for trial before the learned Magistrate would only render in wastage of judicial time. 12. The charges under Sections 323, 506, 509, 417 and 420 of IPC against the petitioner would have to be considered as omnibus allegations without any specific details. On perusal of the record, the relationship or physical intimacy if at all are subsisted between the petitioner and the 1 st respondent would have to be considered as a consensual relationship. The 1 st respondent was a major when the alleged physical exploitation by the petitioner occurred. It is not the case of the 1 st respondent that she did not realize the implications of maintaining intimacy with the petitioner. On the other hand, the 1 st respondent was also aware that the petitioner was already married. His alleged advances against the 1 st respondent were only with motives which are not acceptable to the civilized society. However, even as per the statement of the 1 st respondent the physical intimacy between the petitioner and the 1 st respondent has to be treated as a consensual relationship. 13. On the facts of this case, it is evident that the relationship between the petitioner and the 1 st respondent has turned sour and a complaint is lodged against the petitioner against various offences. The complaint is progressed in barred by limitation. Even if the allegation under Section 420 IPC is to be taken as applicable to the facts of this case. The complaint ought to have been within a reasonable period of time. Admittedly, the complaint is filed after more than nine years of the alleged incident. On these facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal petition deserves to be allowed and as such CC.No.1474 of 2022 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore is hereby quashed. 14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.