SHAW SAI VANDANA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in S.C.No.660 of 2018, on the file of the learned XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Neredmet Police Station, against the petitioner and other accused stating that his younger daughter has committed suicide because of accused No.1 alleging that while the deceased was working as HR in Water Leaf Consultancy, Panjagutta, one person by name Krishna Chaitanya/accused No.1 came for interview. The deceased got well acquaintance with him. After one week, whe he proposed the deceased to marry, she accepted the same and since then they are moving closely. After sometime, accused No.1 and the deceased participated in sexual intercourse and continued the same thereafter, as such, she became pregnant, on which, accused No.1 gave a pil/tablet to her, due to which, her pregnancy was gone. The deceased started forcing accused No.1 to marry her. In the month of December, 2016 they got married. Thereafter, she came to know that accused No.1 was having affair with another girl by name Vandana/ petitioner/accused No.2, who is well aware about the deceased and her relationship with accused No.1. Nevertheless, the petitioner accepted to marry accused No.1. Due to which, the deceased went to depression and after some time, she committed suicide. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.363 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 read with 34 of the IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet before the XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad.

(3.) Heard Sri Y. Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.