The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the operation of the order Judgment daled 22.08.2023, in Crl. M.P. No..l73 ol 2023 in S.C.No.182 ot 2022 on the file of the l-Additional District and Sessions Judge at Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District, pending disposal of the main Criminal Revision Case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KRISHNA REDDY PUTTA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI SYED YASAR MAMOON ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER 0 THE HONOURABLE SMT WSTICE K. SIJ.IANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.477 of 21024 . ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is flle d petitioner/ accused No. 1, before this Court chrtllenging thc judgment dated 22.08.2023 passed in Crl.MP.Nr,.l73 of 2023 in S.C.No. ln'2 of 2022 on the hle of the I Additiorr tr1 District and Sessions Judge. at Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal I.ri ;rrict.

2. Brief lacts of the case are that the vi,:lim lodged a complaint alleging that Petitioner/Accused No. t hr'Ld gained hcr acquaintance and proposed love, leading to re:l cated sexuai intercourse based on a promise of marriage. Howe ,'cr, r.vhen thc parents and brother of Petitioner/ A<:r'u secl No- 1 (Petitioners / Accused Nos.2 to 4) came to kr.r.s' aboul the relationship, they initially agreed to perform .he marriage during a Panchayat but later refused, with Petitirrner,/ Accused No. 1 also declining to marry the victim. Bi: sed on this complaint, i1 case was registered under sections ':77, 42O, ar.d 376 of IPC against the petitioner and other accLLrred. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner fiIed Crl.MP.No.173 ol 2023 in 2 S.C.No.182 of 2022 praying to discharge him from the arraigned offences which was disrnissed by the trial Court uide order dated 22.08.2023 which is under challenge. Being aggrieved by dismissal of Crl.MP.No. 173 of 2O23, this Criminal Revision Case is preferred.

3. Heard Sri P.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for revision petitioner, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No. 1 - State. None appeared for respondent No.2. 4 . Learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the failure of trial Court to appreciate the facts and evidence led to an unjust dismissal of the discharge petition filed by petitioner. He further submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are based on a consensual relationship, and the complainant's consent was not vitiated by any misconception of fact. He contended that the intention of petitioner to marry the complainant was genuine, and the failure to fulhll the promise was due to unforeseen circumstances. White placing reliance on precedents, he averred that a breach of promise to marry does not necessarily t i I I I I i I I o 3 amount to cheating or rape He highlighted thr: distinction between a false promise and a breach of promise, conlcnding that the petitioner did not make a false prom Lr;e with the intention of deceiving the complainant, and the cc:nplainant's allegations of rape are unfounded, as the relal.ir>nship was consensual. Therefore, while advocating that tlre revision petitioner is innocent, and falsely implicated in the case, he prayed this Court to allow this revision case.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additi:rnal Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the submissior's made by learned counsel for revision petitioner, and co;r ended that there are no illegalities or inhrmities in the order I);tssed by the trial Court and asserted that the discharge petitiolr was rightly dismissed as the allegations leveled against the petitioner are of serious nature which require adjudication and tL aL there are sufhcient grounds to frame charges against tht: petitioner' Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss this revisio:t case'

6. Having regard to the rival submissions nrirde, and on going through the material placed on record, it ir; noted that the statement of complainant would show that she was in \ 4 relationship with petitioner for a period of over two years and the petitioner proposed his love to complainant and promised to marry her and made physical relationship with her, however, it is alleged that thereafter, he refused to marry her and abandoned her. The allegations leveled against the petitioner are that initially the petitioner promised the complainant to marry her and under the said promise, he maintained physical relationship with her and later refused to marry her, whereas, the material on record would show that he refused to marry her due to fear of parents. That being so, it is imperative to note that to attract offence under Section 376 of IPC, there must be false promise made by accused and with that false promise, he committed rape on the victim. There is clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. In the case on hand, the complainant also wanted to marry the petitioner and there are no specific grounds to show the rnotive of petitioner to make a false promise with an intention to satisfy his lust. Mere breach of promise and not fulfrlling the promise does not amount to rape. In other words, a consensual sexual relationship, which if continued between the parties for quite a long time, could not be said to have continued under the i I 5 'misconception of fact'under Section 90 and coulcl not be said to be rape In the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonanrs' State of 7. Maharashtra and Others 1 the Hon''ble Suprr;me Court observed that " there is a clear distinction betuteo-it rape and cnnsensual sex. The court, in such cases, must Lery carefullg examine uthether the complainont had actuallg toanled to marry th.e uictim or had mala ftde motiues and had nttde a false promise to thts effect onlg to satisfg his lust, as th= lotter falls u.tithin the ambit of cheating or deception. Ther': is also a di.stinction betu)een mere breach of a promise and ni fulfilling a false promise. If the accused has not made the prottise uith the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrk to indulge irt sextal acts, such an act uould not amount to rclpe. Th'ere maq be a case uhere tle proseantrix agrees to haue sexual bu zrcourse on account of her loue ond passion for tLrc acatsed artd not solelg on account of tle misconception created bg acansed., or uthere an acansed, on account of ciranmstances uhich he co'-id not haue foreseen or u,thich uere beAond his control, taas unctble to marry her despite hauing euery intention to do. Such crz:;es must be '1zors1 rs scc rsr 5 t treated differentlg. If ttrc complainant had. ang mala fide intention and if he had clandestine motiues, it is a clear case of rape. The acknouledged consensual phgsical relationship betueen the parties tuould not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC."

8. Reverting to the facts of case on hand, even according to the complainant, the petitioner was wiliing to marry her and a panchayat was also held in this regard in the presence ofelders ald his parents also accepted their marriage, but later due to fear of parents, he refused to marry her. That being so, this Court is of the opinion that the same itself would reveal that there is no scope for the aliegation that petitioner made false promise of marriage and on that ground he maintained physical relationship with complainant. There is no material on record to constitute the alleged offences against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court deems it ht to aliow this revision case, setting aside the order dated 22.O8.2023 passed in Crl.MP.No.173 of 2023 in S.C.No. 182 of 2022.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the order dated 22.Oa.2023 passed 1n i ,: l *-EF .:1, 1 Crl.MP.No. 173 of 2023 in S.C.No. 182 of 2022 on tht: file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Gadwal, Joguiamba Gadwal District. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending shall aiso stand closed Sd/- L. LAKSHMI BABU rEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYi/ r{ SECTION OFFTCER To, \ l The I Additional District And sessions Judge at Gadw:rr Joguramba Gadwal District.

2. The Station House Officer, K.T Doddy police Station, .tr:,gulamba Gadwat. 3 Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the Iitate of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Krishna Reddy putta, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies NVB/PSI- W HIGH COURT DATED:1010912025 21 stP il6 .i r,. 1,, \t t .o c€s PATC\\ ORDER CRLRC.N0.477 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE 1 't%