High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Janaki, D/o. Late_Narsing Rao Age- 30 years, Occ- private employee Pent House bearing Flat No.P-2,Plot No.34, Srinilayam, B-Block, Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Kondapur, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT 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 proceedings against petitioner/Accused in pRC.No.7 ot 2023 on the file of Honble X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at Prashanth Nagar,; l.A. NO: 1OF 2023 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 the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused in PRC.No.7 ot 2023 on the file of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at Prashanth Nagar,; l.A. NO: 7 OF 2023 BETWEEN: Smt. Sunke Janaki, D/o. Late.Narsing Rao Age- 30 years, Occ- private employee Pent House bearing Flat No.P-2,Plot No.34, Srinilayam, B-Block, Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Kondapur, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.2 AND '1. Puli S Vineeth, S/o. Late P.Sriramulu, Age 34 years, Occ- pvt. Employee, R/o.H.No.114-6461D11B, FIat No.202, Jaya Residency, AC Guards, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, through SHO, Gachibowli Police Station RespondenUPetitioner RESPONDENT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to Vacate the stay order passed in LA.No.1 of 2022 in Crl.P.No. 10476 of 2023 daled 14-02-2023 in the interest of justice; This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari, Advocate representing M/s Disha Law Firm for the petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No_ .1 and Sri M. Adam, Advocate representing Sri Gurram Ramesh Babu, Advocate for the Respondent No.2; The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL c AL ION No.l4760F 20.23 ORDER . This Criminaj petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings against him in p.R.C.No.7 of 2023 on the file of the learned X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, cyberabad, Kukatpalry, at prashanth Nagar (for short, ,,the trial Court").

2. Heard Mr.Nageshwar Rao Pujari, learned counsel representing M/s.Disha Law Firm appearing for the petitioner, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent No.l _State and Mr.M.Adam, learned counsel Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for representing Mr.Gurram respondent No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 2). .IO .2022 respondent No.2 fited a complaint against the petitioner stating that the petitioner came in contact with her through Bharat Matrimony and that they had shared their personal details over \pgrorr"; that shg-di-s"&qga f,.. details to him; that the petitioner used to talk to her regularly and discuss about their marriage. But his mother did not accept for the said proposal; that when 2 respondent No.2 discussed about the said marriage, the petitioner made her believe that he would marry her upon .l convincing his parents and forced her to have sexual intimacy with him. Basing on the said facts, the present crime is registered aga.inst the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 417,42O and 376 of I.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 had given false complaint against the petitioner to compel him to marry her. He further submitted that the complaint, statements of the victim and her statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., clearly show that respondent No'2 had made contradictory statements which are fatal to the case of the prosecution. He states that at the most the petitioner is liable for breach of promise, which does not have any penal consequences' Despite, the petitioner is charged with the offence of Rape with a false pretext of marriage which is nothing but abuse of process of law. Relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme CourtinPrashanthVs.StateofNCTofDelhil,Dr.Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others2' I 2024 scc on Line sc 3375 , (2019) l8 Supreme Court Cases 191 {-_ J Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra and another3, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another4, he seeks to allow this Criminal Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the matter requires to be tried and only upon conclusion of a full-fledged trial, the truth comes to light. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

6. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and on perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires a full-fledged trial. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Crimina-l Petition, at this stage. ) )

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to file an application seeking to discharge before the tria.l Court. Upon filing of such an application, the trial Court shall examine and pass appropriate orders, as per law. However, as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner, appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with in P.R.C.No.7 of 2023 on the hle of the learned X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, at Prashanth Nagar when r zo2c scc on Line sc 3471 a (20I9) 9 Supreme Court Cases 608 \., + represented by his counsel on record. The appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with subject to filing an affidavit by the petitiorier stating that, in his absence, the proceedings conducted by his counsel will not be disputed by him in any manner. However, the petitioner shall appea-r before the learned Magistrate as and when his presence is required. In the event of failure of the petitioner to appear when the Court directs, this order dispensing with his appearance stands vacated. It is made clear, this order shall not preclude the trial Court from passing appropriate orders, as per law. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The X Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at Prashanthnagar

2. The Station House Officer, Gachibowli P.S., Cyberabad Commissionerate 3. One CC to M/s Disha Law Firm, Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to Sri G Ramesh Babu, Advocate (OPUC) 5 Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad (oUT) 6. Two CD Copies I i t To, VSM/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 / k ( e) 1HE S14 I6.

6.( 23lul 26 2 .9 t Cr Sp,6r I H EO * I ORDER CRLP.No.1476 ot 2023 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION b\ d,,dl