Neehatika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maha ashtra and

Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

2. Godke Mansi, D/o. Godke Prakash Kumar, Aged 17 years, Occ.Student, Rl/o. Si g?SB$rg.r^',"^lX"J,, H. N o. 6-e 1, B aswa n as a r c o I o ny, n t i n u r, zafl;gpBXffl Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the criminal Proceedings initiated against the Petitioner/Accused Nos.2 vide CC No. 724 ol 2021 , on the file the 1"t Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Metropolitan Sessions Judge at L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy for the offence under Sec. U/s. 506 IPC l.A. NO: 1OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including personal appearance of the Petitioner/Accused Nos. 2 in CC No. 724 of 2021, on the file the 1"t Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Metropolitan Sessions Judge at L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District pending disposal of the Quash Proceedings This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Griminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PALLE SRIHARINATH, Advocate for the Petitioner and E GANESH Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER ) 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENI IGOPAL CRIMINAL PEIITION No.663 2oF20tt ORDER: This Criminal Petition is hled by accused I 'o.2, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.724 of 2O2) tn the hle of the learned I Additional District and Sessions . udge -rum_ Metropolitan Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar for the offence under Section 506 of IPC.

2. Heard Mr.P.Srihari Nath, learned cour sel for the petitioner and Mr. E.Ganesh, learned Assr s ,ant public Prosecutor appea:ing for respondent No. l -State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 0g.02 i O2O at 2O.OO hours the de-facto complainant-victim girl hr s lodgeri a complaint against the accused stating that the pt.] sics kcturer named Sampath Kumar in their college who war; good looking and she also liked his way of teaching and style. )nce, the de_ facto complainant took his phone number from I rr friend and texted him casually saying that she is also a fan I he and they started talking. In the month of September, 2O1() the accused No. 1 called the victim girl to his room at Madhapu I to meet him. There, he told her that he Iiked her a lot and gave Thumps-Up 2 to have it, after drinking she felt drowsy and in the meantime he forcefully parlicipated in intercourse with her at that night and in the next day morning, accused No.l dropped her at the college. Thereafter, accused No.1 had sex with her several times by giving false promise of getting IIT seat. The petitioner- accused No.2, who is the roommate of accused No.l, is also a Physics l€cturer in the same college. The petitioner demanded the victim girl to give sexual pleasures, but she refused the sarne. Then the petitioner threatened her with dire consequences. On 05.02.2020 accused No. t had intercourse with her forcefully saying that this is the last and threatened her not to disclose the same to anyone. Basing on the said facts, Crime No.135 of 2O2O is registered against the petitioner- aicused No.l and accused No.1 for the olfences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(n) and 506 of IPC and Section 5(I) read with 6 and 11 and read with Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Metropolitan Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, against the petitioner-accused No.2 and accused No. 1.

4. l,earned counsel for the petitioner would submit that most of the allegations are made against accused No.l, who is the 4 o 3 roommate of petidoner-accused No.2. Accused No l called the de-facto complainant to his room to come to know t rat whether accused No.2 demanded her to fullil his sexual c:sire. It is further submitted that except stating that a';:used No.2 threatened the de-facto complainant to fulfil his ; :xual desire no other allegations were made against him and nc ntimidation caused by accused No.2, therefore, he seeks indulg:nce of this Court.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Publ:r Prosecutor would submit that as many as 22 witnesses have been examined ad their statements have been recorded rLl der Section 161 Cr.P.C and charge sheet has been laid beforr: the learned trial Court. The truth in this case can be : icited after conducting thorough investigation; therefore, interf,: ence of this Court at this stage is unwarranted and seeks to r ismiss this criminal petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the pr I tioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, this Court witt out making any obserrqitions on merits and demerits and rely r g upon the decision passed the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M7 : .Neehatika \ Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maha ashtra and 4 Othersr, this Court is of the opinion that the Court while quashing the F.I.R., by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has to consider whether the allegations in the F'I'R disclose the commission of a cognizable offence or not; the Court is not required to consider on merits, whether or not, the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the Court has to permit the investigating agency/ police to investigate the allegations in the F.I.R' Hence' this Court is not inclined to entertain the Criminal PetiLion at this stage'

7. However, as sought by learned counsel for the petitioner' liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise his contentions before the learned trial Court by frling discharge petition before the trial Court in C.C'No.724 of 2O2l on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge --cum- Metropolitan Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar. On hling such a petition, the triat Court shall decide the same on merits, within a period of three (O3) months from the date of its hling, in accordance with law' 8 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disPosed of' ..-- '(2021) 4 s.c.R. 1044 5 Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. K.SAI KUMAR DI PUTY REGISTRAR l- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1- The lst Additional District and Sesslons Judge -cum- Me -opolitan Sessions ' 2. The Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station' Ma Jhapur' Cyberabad irJg" at L B. Nagar, Rangareddy District District

3. One CC to SRI PALLE SRIHARINATH Advocate [OPUC I 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State )f Telangana at HYderabad [OUTI

5. Two CD CoPies VM/GR d t HIGH COURT DATED: 2510712025 ORDER CRLP.No.6632 ot 2021 I (' ;iffi sh 1 JrN 2[26 , !e\: Sp.t r( .'.'::: --'a ,-,/ DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION