The High Court · 2025

Order

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the proceedings in SPL SC. No.24 of 2020, pending on the file of the VI Metropolitan Sessions Judge court -cum- Iipecial Court for SC/ST Cases at Securrderabad against the petitioner-accused.

2. Heard Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mothkuri Sinjith Goud, learned Amicus Curie for respondent No.2 and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 - State and perused the record.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that on

26.08.20L9 at 21.35 hours, the de-facto complainant-Smt.C.Kanthi Sireesha lodged a written complaint stating that she met R.Obulesu @ Abhi-accused while studying school, presently he is working as Electrician in ESI hospital. He married her on 24.03.2006 secretly at the age of 19 years and maintaining physical relation at their home saying that she is his wife. She came to Hyclerabad for her studies in the year 2010 and stayed in a hostel at Ameerpet. He j i I I I 2 came to Hyderabad in the year 2013 and stayed in a hostel near to her hostel and used to met her every day and promised her that he will marry her officially in the presence of elders. He introduced her as his girlfriend to his friends, neighbourhood and colleagues. He took room at H.No.7-L-302/41lA, Dasarm Basthi, SR Nagar and he used to call her to his room for physical relationship and one of his friends by name Rahul misguided him about their relationship. Since 2018 he denied to marry her. She has photos, videos, mails, chatting and recordings of their relationship. In July, 2018 she called his father and told about their marriage and physical relationship, then he promise that he will look into the issue. The accused left her company on 26.08.2018 and married another girl. He abused her in filthy language and beat her. The de-facto complainant requested him to marry her, but all his family members denied for that. In the year 2015 they quarreled about their marriage and compromised, but the accused cheated her. During course of investigation, LW.21-Sub Inspector of Police, SR Nagar examined the de-facto complainant and LWs.1 to 20, accordingly charge sheet has been laid.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial is not yet commenced. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v The State of t:- 3 Maharashtral in crl.A N0.1165 0f 20Lg would submit that the promise of rnarriage and indulging thereby sexual activity does not fall within the ambit of Section 375 of IpC and so far as sections imposed ag;:inst the petitioner under section 3(2)(v) of sc/sr (POA) Act are concerned they are not attracted to the facts of the case. In the present case, is no abuse has been posed in the name of caste as per the averments made in the complaint lodged against the petitione- and none of the ingredients are attracted against the petitioner to try him under the said Act. Learnecl counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the lion'ble supreme court in Hitesh varma v state of ttttarakhand and anothel and submit that none of the ingredients attract to. the facts of the case to try the petitioner under Section 417 of IpC ;lnd the question of Section 493 of IPC does not arise as the complainant herself has admitted the fact in the compliant that after cornplaint, he has deserted her n the year 2018.

5. service of notice has been caused upon the de-facto complainant. Despite receipt of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of de-facfo complainant-respondent No.2. This court has ' RrR zotg supREIuE couRr 40lo ' SCC 2020 online I I I \ \ I 4 appointed Mr.Mothkuri Sinjith Goud as Amicus Curie to assist this Court on behalf of respondent No.2.

6. Learned Amicus Curie would submit that the petitioner approached this Court with un-cleaned hands, where the serious allegations have been made against him and the veracity of the matter at hand can only be elicited through the due process of trial; unless and until such a trial is conducted, the truth remains obscured, hence, indulgence of this Court is not warranted at this stage. He would also submit that at the instance of the petitioner, sexual relationship between the de-facto complainant and the petitioner has developed and all through the petitioner-accused had engaged her by making false promises to the de-facto complainant. He also placed reliance upon the statement of the de-facto complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., recorded by respondent police/LW.21, where the independent witnesses were being arrayed as circumstantial witnesses i.e., LWs.4, 5 and 6, all of them in one voice would submit that the petitioner-accused had introduced the victim to all of them on her birthday that she would be his fianc6 and that the relationship between the petitioner and de-fac:to complainant was also admitted by the said circumstantial witnesses that the victim/de-facto complainant used to come to the petitioner- accused, when he has taken a room on rent. All of them have / /l ,/ ./ i' ,., )' z! I 5 attended to the birthday party of the victim girl iand hence would submit these facts demonstrated the case against the petitioner and hence would seek to dismiss this criminal petition.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor taking the same lines submitted by the learned Amicus Curie and would submit that unless and until the trial is conducted, the truth cannot be elicited in this case. Medical examination has also been corducted and the entire evidence is against the. petitioner, hence the trial Court alone shall conduct the proceedings to elicit the truth ard therefore, he seeks to dismiss this criminal petition. B. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Amicus Curie appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, upon examination of the material facts before this Court it is to be noticed that the complaint has been lodged in the year 2019. The complaint filed by LW.l-de-facto complainant indicates the incidents occurred continuously from

24.03.2006, but complainant lodged a complaint after 13 long years i.e., on 26.08.2019. It is also stated in the complaint that the de- facfo complainant and the accused met on 26.08.2018 i.e., nearly one year prior to lodging of complaint, and the petitioner on the pretext of marriage, committed sexual intercourse with the de-facto com pla ina nt. i 6 ....1.,

9. On perusal of the facts and circumstances and upon perusal of the evidence and statements of LWs.3, 4, 5 and 6, where the circumstantial evidence has been demonstrated on one aspect that the petitioner and the de-facfo complainant known to each other and the de-facto complainant was introduced to them by the petitioner/accused, who stated that he intended to marry the de- facto complainant.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme. Court in the matter of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (cited supra) had held that by taking reliance on the judgments therein viz., State of Haryana v Bhajanlal, Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v State of Maharashtra, Kaini Rajan v Sate of Kerala, Deepak Gulati v State of Haryana, Yedla Srinivas Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh, Uday v State of Karnataka, had come to the conclusion that content of the whatsapp messages sent by the appellant and the words alleged to have been spoken do not make out a case under SC/ST (POA) Act as per Section 3(1XuXw) and Section 3(2)(vii) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and accordingly allowed. In case of Hitesh Verma v The State of Uttarakhand and another, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court by placing reliance on the judgments Gerige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v State of Maharashtra and others, Swaran Singh and others v State through Standing Counsel I 7 ,/. and others, Khuman Singh v State of Madhya Prao'esh, Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v State of Maharashtra and another, Union of India v State of Maharashtra and others, Prathv'i Raj Chauhan v Union of India and others, Ishwar Pratap Singh and others v State of tJttar Pradesh and another, had come to the conclusion that Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are not made out against the accused. The case in hand is under Section 417,493,376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(2Xv) of the Act, 1989, which are extracted hereunder: - Section 4L7: Punishment for cheating.- Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one y.ear, or with fine, or with both. Section 493: Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 376: Punishment for rape: (2)Whoever-. \_ \ \ 8 (n)commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 3. Punishments for offences atrocities. (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- (v)commits any offence under the Indian penal code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;

11. This Court on careful examination of facts and circumstances of the case and upon placing the reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Pramod Suryabhan pawar (cited supra 1) and Hitesh verma (cited supra 2) is of the opinion that insofar as making out a case under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC is concerned, it requires specific findings. However, nowhere in the complaint does the de-facto complainant allege that the petitioner committed the said act forcefully against her. / / / 9 t2. Insofar as section 417 of Ipc is concerned, the Hon,ble supreme corrrt has categorically held in catena of judgments that making a false promise of marriage, if made with dishonest intention from the inception, falls within the anrbit of cheating against the petitioner. insofar as Sections 504 and 506 of IpC are concerned, there is no allegation of intimidation or threat made in the complaint-. In the absence of such specific averments, invoking I \ Sections 504 and 506 against the petitioner wouhj amount to an abuse of the process of law. Insofar as section 3(1)(u)(w) and ( ( 3(2)(7) of the Act, 1989, the Hon'bre Supreme court of India has categorically held in the catena of judgments that these provisions are not attracted in the absence of specific allegation, .onrtituting the offence. Ir view of this, continuation of the proceedings before this court, as well as the trial court, would amount to an abuse of process of lalt,. The complaint has been filed nearly, one year after the alleged incident, despite the de-facfo complainant having known the petitioner for over 16 years. In the absence of specific allegations constituting the offences, the ingredients of the alleged charges are not made out.

13. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner stand quashed irr c.c No.24 0f \ l0 2020 on the file of the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge - cum- Special Court for SC/ST Cases at Secunderabad. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII To, D/-T.VIJAY KUMAR PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER t Court For SC/ST Cases, At SecunO"ir6"O,

1. The vl Addr. Metropolitan sessions Judge court _cum_ speciar 2' The station House officer, porice station, sn Nragar, Hyderabad 3 rwo ccs to the puBlrc pRosEcu;gl, 4' One cc to sRr . c L NARnsrnrrun RAO novocate lopuc, 5. Two CD Copies l]ri'Ll'rrt ar Hyderabad (our) " TPK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:28107 12025 ORDER CRLP.No.206 of 2021 () 'i lt h- ::: 'i (.jt a'.r.' 3 tt; z{ilt 't !1 * CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED &\ I I I I I E I I I i I I I I I I I ! 5 I i i I I z I I I ! i I : I i