He relied upon a judgment in pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra Anr

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 call for the records relating to the c.c.No 4437 of 2021 on the file oftheXlVAddl.Metropolitantrrlagistrate,Cyberabad'atRajendranagar, R.R_District, and quash the proceedings thereon, and to grant relief or reliefs' l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition un ler stated in the l\4enro r be pleased to g rzrrr: the petitioner nOC ltlagistrate, Cybe zib main Criminal Petitic iiection 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances r,'dum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. tht: l-ligh Court may :tay of all further proceedings including the appearance of ''1o 4437 ol 2021 on the file of the XIV I'dr:|. [t/etropolitan r:l at Rajendranagar, R.R.District, pending :iisposal of the This Petiticr oming on for hearing, upon perusing tl-e [Vemorandum of Grounds of Crirrirra Petition and upon hearing the argumr:nls of Sri Syed Ghouse Basha, A c v r ;ate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Dublic Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behal'' r1 ihe Respondent No.1. The Court made the iDllowing Order:- I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1046 of 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.4437 of 2021 on the file of XIV Addltional [/etropolitan [Vlagistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

02. Heard Syed Ghouse Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Smt S I\Iadhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent No.2. Perused the record

03. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was in relationship with the accused since 2014 and he promised to marry her after marriage of his elder brother. She has cancelled her engagement as he assured her for marriage. But later he prolonged to marry her. Subsequently 2nd respondent came to know that he got married with another girl and he was absconding and not answering the calls of 2"d respondent, Basing on the complaint crime No.535 of 2021 was registered by the 2 Rajendra Nag r, police station for the offence under S'=ction 420 of the r : ian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') anc after completion cf r"vestigation filed charge sheet. 04 Le :rned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner lt ar Accused €trlc nothing to do with the alleged olfence 2"d respondent are working in A nazon companv ar<j rs such both of them have got accltairrtance with each cti t, r and as such 2nd respondent expressed to marry the te' ioner. But the petitioner herein informt,rd that his parent:; t r:ruld not accept as both of them Lrel'lng to different cetst n. Later 2nd respondent got marriecl :o one of his colleag Lte respondent f n 2O2O Unable to digest the samer, ':he 2nd l,':,d the present case on the petitroner' lt is further sttbrri ted that even if the allegations made irr the said petition ar,: t ri(en at their face value and accepled in their entirety dc -r, , prima facie constitute any offence aga nst the petitioner l'e 'r,in Hence prays to quash the proct,ledings against the 1: :i itione rs. 3

05. He relied upon a judgment in pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.1, wherein in paras 3, 18, '19 it was held as- The allegations in the FIR are summarized thus: (i) According to the complainant, she and the appellant have known each other since 1998. She would speak to the appellant on the phone and met him regularly as early as 2004. ln 2008 the appellant proposed marriage and assured her lhat their belonging to clifferent castes would not be a hindrance. The appeltant altegedly promised to marry the complainant after the marriage of his elder sister. The allegations in the FIR indicate that in November 2009 the complainant initially refused to engage in sexual relations with the accused, but on the promise of marriage, he established sexuat relations The allegatiorts in the FIR indicate that the complainant was aware that there existed obstacles to marrying the appeltant since 200g, and that she and the appellant continued to engage in sexual retations long after their getting married had become a disputed matter. He further relied upon another decision in Mahesh Damu Khare v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.2, wherein in para 5 it was held as- Consequently, an FIR case was registered against the appellant who then moved the Sesslons Courl seeking anticipatory bail in Cr.N.302 of 2017 in which he was granted an intenm irotection vide order dated 16.08.2017 and was ultimately granted anticipatory bait vide order dated 12.09.2017 by observing, inter alia, that the very fact that the complainant had indulged in sexual relations for a long period of 10 years goes to show that the sexual relation was not forcible but was consensua/. 'zors u 1sc1 1a1 os ' 2024 tNsc 892 4 Herce, r ayed to quash the proceedings agerinst the accused 06 Lr: l'ned Assistant Public Prosecutor fot ther State submitted .lre t there are specific allegations a.c;arrnrst the petitioner arc the truth or otherwise would come r:tt only after condlcti 1,:1 trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss lhis; C'minal Petition. 07o I perusal of the charge sheet, it is eviCent that 2nd respon,le r came to know that accused was rnarried in the month >f :rnuary, 2021 , bul the complaint was lrdged by the defactt :implainant on 30.032021, wherein tlrere is delay of mcrt than two months in filing the compla nt which remained tttte :,plained. Furlher the ingredients of the ':ffence are not mrrlr , out and only vague and omnibus a le'Sations are made a yainst the petitioner to implicate him for the alleged offen :,,:. Prima facie, there is no material to shcw that the petitio te 'nade promise to the 2nd respondert to marry her. 08 lr view of the facts and circumstanc=s of the case and tl r,, Apex Court decisions relied upon by the 5 learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner-accused amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner- accused are liable to be quashed' 09 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the Petitioner-accused in the file of XIV Additional the proceedings against C.C No.4437 of 2021 on tVletropolitan tVlagistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar' are l hereby quashed Asa sequel, pending miscellaneous applications' if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \ \ To,

1. The XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar, Rangareddy District.

2. The Station House Officer, Rajendra Nagar P.S., Cyberabad Commissionerate

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT].

4. One CC to Sri Syed Ghouse Basha, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VC/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:22144t2025 I zr'^ i',e srq I€ t t 2 7 r,li frfi I f !; rr rrl Lrr( \ * a ORDER CRLP.No.104ti ot 2022 ALLOWING'TI.IE CRLP .1 il\ ,"4'/ ,i"t/