LAWS(APH)-2012-1-119

VAGIRI RAJA KUMARI D/O. VIJAYA RATNAM Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE SHO, IRAGAVARAM P.S., WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD & ANR.

Decided On January 20, 2012
Vagiri Raja Kumari D/O. Vijaya Ratnam Appellant
V/S
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Through The Sho, Iragavaram P.S., West Godavari District, Rep. By The Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P., Hyderabad And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by A3 Vagiri Raja Kumari in P.R.C.No.55 of 2011 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, West Godavari District, to quash the proceeding therein, against her.

(2.) A report came to be presented by the victim girl on 03.01.2011 before the Station House Officer, Iragavaram Police Station, West Godavari District, alleging, inter alia, that A1 Kombothula Ratna Kumar @ Chinnari has intercoursed with her against her will and thereupon promised her to marry. It is also stated in the report that the petitioner herein prevailed upon her to continue the contacts with A1, assuring her marriage with A1. Subsequently, A1 refused to marry her. The petitioner herein allegedly threatened her with dire -consequences. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.2 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 417, 376, 506 and 109 IPC came to be registered. After due investigation, Inspector of Police, Penugonda Circle, filed charge - sheet before II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, West Godavari District. The learned Magistrate took the charge -sheet on file as P.R.C.No.55 of 2011. Hence, this Criminal Petition by A3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the relief stated supra.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Lecturer in Sidhardha College, Tanuku and the accusations leveled against her in the report presented by the de facto complainant is highly unbelievable and therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner in P.R.C.No.55 of 2011 amounts to abuse of process of Court.