The High Court · 2025

2. Ms. Bokka Swetha, D/o Bokka Sudhakar Reddy Age 25 Yrs Occ. Pvt Employee R/o H. No 2-1-118, Upparapally, Attapur Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No 9100 of 2024 was filed before the Hon'ble I Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad for the offences punishable under U/s.417, 354D, 354,420 lPC, against the Petitioner herein. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BURUJU PAPA REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI M VIVEKANANDA REDDY' the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4 LZO of 2OZs ORDER: This criminal Petition is liled seeking to qr-rash the proceedings against petitioner/acctrsed in cc.No.9loo of 2024 on rhe file of the I Addirional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at H5rderabad, registerc:cl for the offences punishable under sect.ions 3s4,3s4-D,4i7 and 42o of IPC.

2. The b,rief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/Bokka s',vetha, a 2S-year-old accountant., filed a complainl- alleging that her childhood friend, petitionr:r/Bharath Reddy, with whom she had mutualry decided to get marriecl, attempted to force her into physical intimacy two months before their planned wedding. when she refused, he czrncelled the marriage anrl subsequently harassed her, repeatedly contacting her ancl pres;suring her to meet him solely for physical intimac,v without arly commitment, causing her signilicant [r-auma that rcquired hospitalization. On receipt of the said comp,laint, a case 2 was registered against the petitioner for the offences as alleged. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed. 3 Heard Sri B.Papa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M.vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.l - State. None appeared for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the allegations in the FIR do not attract the offenses under sections 417, 354D, 354, and 42O of the Indian Penal Code (lPC). He contended that the defacto complainant has made false allegations with a fraudulent and dishonest intention to cause injury to the petitioner. The defacto complainant has been allegedly instigated by some persons and has created a story by roping the petitioner as an accused, taking advantage of the situation to avoid her financial liability. He averred that the allegations leveled against the petitioner have no basis in the eye of law. He lamented that in the absence of any ingredients to attract the alleged offenses, the registration of the FIR against the petitioner is contrary to law. He pointed out that the complaint fails to show the mens rea or motive on the part of thc petitioner, and there are no specilic allegations against the / .,, 3 I petitioner to attract the alleged offenses. Therefore, prtr-yed this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the pet-itioner'

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently, opposed the submissions made by learned couns,:l for petitioner, and submitted that there are serious allegal.ions against the petitioner and basing on the averments <lf the complaint, he was implicated in lhe case' Therefore, whlle advocating that the matter require::s trial, he pral,ecl this Cc,urt to dismiss the criminal petition'

6. Having regard to rival submissions made, anrl on going through the rnaterial placed on record, it is noted that the date <rI complaint is 24.O5.2024, and the allegations levcled against the petitionel' are the offences punishable under St:ctions 254, 354-D, 417 and 42O of tPC. It is the contention of petitioner that he gave mon,3y to de facto complainant and to avoirl repayment of the same. she began to threaten him and filecl false case. According trt complainant, their marriage was decided six months before filing of complainant and during thr: course, the petitioner attempted to be ph),sical with her for which she did not agree and in that rage, the petitioner cancelled rnarriage and krler tried tc) contact her as well. \ 4 7 - Perusing the record would reveal that the marriage of petitioner and complainant was fixed but the same was not materialized due.to behavior of petitioner. However, it is noticed .that neither the dates of incidents, nor the dates as to when the petitioner attempted to contact the complainant were shown in the investigation process. Except alleging that the petitioner has outraled the modest5r of complainant, neither in the complaint, nor in the investigation done, there are any averments to prove the allegations leveled against the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner has liled copies of his whatsapp chats with complainant, wherein, it is seen that the petitioner has given money to complainant, and when he requested for repayment of the same, the payment was refused by complainant. Therefore, it can be said that there were monetary transactions between the parties. In addition, the petitioner has also filed his account statement s[owing that he transferred amount to complainant. In nutshell, this Court is of the opinion thai there are no specific averments against the petitioner to constitute the offences as alleged. That being so, this Court is of the firm view that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. / 5

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowecl, quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C)C.No.91OO of '2024 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan N{:rgistrate, al- Hyderabad. Misccllaneous petitions, pending, if any, s;hall stzrnd closed. SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Asif Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SFtl BURUJU PAPA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to SiRl PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies GR/PSt- tu, , HIGH COURT DATED:2 410712025 o i. E CRLP.No.4170 o12025 l :':,;'.. :... ):' 15 l'l0u 2t[5 (-; l -11 _, T ! i^, t'. "" ING THE CRIMINAL PETITION \l ?^ \