K. Jayalakshmi, v. Kallakshmi, And 3 Others,

SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8684 of 2011

ORDER

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.525 of 2011 of II Town Police Station, Vijayawada City, registered for the offences under Sections 384, 500 and 506 IPC, against the petitioner/accused. 2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the 4th respondent-State. Notices sent to respondents 1 to 3 were returned with an endorsement 'not claimed'. 3.

The allegations in the complaint are that the petitioner/accused was a servant maid in the house of respondents 1 to 3 for the last three years and the first respondent also treated her as one of her children since she has no daughters. The 2nd and 3rd respondents used to attend the personal works of the accused as and when required. The 3rd respondent being the younger one in the family, used to visit the house of the accused frequently and attend her works, treating her as their family member. While so, the accused had married one Naidu and out of their wedlock, a female child was born. Later, due to misunderstandings they were living separately. It is further alleged that when the accused proposed to marry 3rd respondent as she abandoned her husband, the parents of 3rd respondent denied the same. Then, she lodged a report against the 3rd respondent and the same was registered as C.C.No.905 of 2010 of L & O, II Town Police Station, for the offence under Section 420 IPC, and subsequently, at the advice of elders, she withdrew the

said case. Thereafter, the accused started canvassing in the locality TR,J Crl.P. No.8684 of 2011 that the 3rd respondent is her husband and they got married in a temple. Further, the accused is also harassing the 1st and 2nd respondents to provide the property left by the husband of the 1st respondent in her favour and also to perform marriage of her with the 3rd respondent, otherwise, she would foist a case against respondents 1 to 3.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent filed the present case as a counterblast to the complaint filed by petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, which was registered as Cr.No.524 of of L & O II Town Police Station, Vijayawada City. 5.

The fact that remains is that the report given by the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and the present complaint are on the same date. Therefore, unless a detailed enquiry is taken up, the truth of the main allegations cannot be brought to light. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused.

6.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand dismissed.

___________ T. RAJANI, J 29th October, 2018.

sj