The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Ansaar Mohammad v. The State of Rajasthan, held that rn the event of the complainanuvictim wiilingry

Petition under section 482 of Cr.P C praylng that in the circumstances stated in the tVlemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to .registered quash F l R. No,188 of 2022 f|led in P-S. Raidurga, Cyberabad, Hyderabad, U/s 376(2) (n), 417,s06 r/w 34 lPV, 3(i) (r) (s) SC, ST, POA Act 2015 l.A. NO: 2OF 2022 Petition under section 482 of Cr. P.C praying that in the clrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of crimrnal Petition, the Hrgh court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in F.l.R. No.188 of 2022 filed in P S Raidurga, Cyberabad' Hyderabad,' registerei u/s 376(2)(n), 417,566 r/w 34 lPV, a(lXr)(s) sc, ST,-PoA Act ZOt S, inctudin{arrest of the petiiioners, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition: This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri K.Durga Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Ms S.Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No 2' The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION N 0.2950 of 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4BZ of Cr.p.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in F l.R.No.1BB of 2022 of P.S. Raidurgam, Cyberabad District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 376(2)(n), 417 and 506 read with Section 34 of the lndian penal Code (for short'lPC') and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduted Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 201S (for short ,the Act,).

2. Heard Mr. K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and lVrs. S [\4adhavi, learned Assistant Public prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2-de facfo complainant either on the earlier occasion i.e., 12.06.2025 or today, despite the matter pertaining to the year 2022. perused the record -

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the de facto complainant, who is aged about 26 years as on the date of lodging complaint, is a divorcee with two children, working in the Film lndustry as a Movie writer. ln the year 2019, the petitioner-accused No.1 contacted de facto complainant on seeing her social media posts and both of them got 2 acquainted with each other. Though the de facto comprainant stated that she was married and having chirdren, the petitioner-accused No..r made a false promise that he wi, marry her. on 22.0s.2020, the petitioner- accused No.1 allegedly went to her flat, gave her a cool drink that caused her to become unconscious, and then raped her, recording the act. When she confronted petitioner-accused No.1 on the next day, he threatened to post the video online. The parents of petitioner_accused No. 1 i.e., petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 farsery craiming that their son was divorced and promising to arrange his marriage wilh de facto complainant, convinced her to continue rerationship with petitioner- accused No.1 The petitioner-accused No..l also acted as if he has agreed to the marriage. Berieving them, the de facto comprainant rived with him, during which, he allegedly raped her multiple times without her consent or knowledge. When she asked to marry her, he repeatedly postponed it and eventuaily refused. Ail the accused abused her in firthy language. on 30.09.2021, the petitioner-accused No.1 turned off his phone, and later, the de facto comprainant came to know that petitioner- accused No.4, who is the wife of petitioner_accused No. j , had not divorced him. Hence, the present complaint was lodged. Basing on the said complaint, a case in crime No.lgB of 2022 was registered against the petitioners. 3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. The de facto complainant is in the habit of entrapping innocent men, engaging in the acts of blackmail, and lodge false cases against them. She filed several cases against many men. The de facto complainant was married five times. He further submits that the de facto complainant is living in rented places and in order to evade payment of rents, she is taking shelter of caste and threatening the owners under SC/ST Act. The relationship between petitioner-accused No.1 and de faclo complainant is purely consensual. No specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners- accused Nos.l to 4 hence the offences alleged against them would not be attracted, and thus, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. All the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition. 4

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Ansaar Mohammad v. The State of Rajasthan, held that rn the event of the complainanuvictim wiilingry stayed in a rerationship with the appeilant, and thereafter, if the rerationship did not work out, eventuaily, no offence under Section 376 (2)(n) of lpC is made out. Further, in the judgment of Shambhu Kharwar y. Sfate of uttar pradeshz, the Hon,ble Supreme Court held that since the relationship between parties was purely consensuar and as the complainant is aged 32 years, she is aware of her actions. Thus, the ingredients of offence of rape were not made out.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT of Dethi)3, at paragraph No.22 held as follows: "ln the instant case, the prosecutrix who hersetf was a married woman having three chitdren, could not be said to have acted under the alleged fatse promise given by the appellant or under the misconception of fict while giving the consent to have sexual retationship with the appellant. Undisputedly, she continued to have such relationship with him at least for about five years ti she gave complaint in the year 201 S. Even if the allegations made by her in her deposition before the courl. are taken on their face value, then also to construe such allegations as'rape' by the appellant, woulct be stretchinq the case too far. The proseculrix being a marriecl womJn and lhe mother of three children was matured and inte igent enough to understand the significance and the conseguences of the moral or immoral quatity of act she was consenting to. Even otherwise, if her entire conduct during the course of such relationship with the accused, is closely seen, it appears that she had betrayed her husband and three children by having retationship with the accused, for whom she had developed liking for him. ' 2Ol2 Live Law (SC) 599 " (2024) 3 SCC 406 '1zou:1 ts scc tss 5 She had gone to stay with him during the subslslence oF her marriage with her husbancl, to live a better ltfe with the accused. ..."

8. As seen from the record, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner- accused No.1 and the de facfo complainant are in live-in relationship since 2020. Though the alleged incident of rape had occurred on

22.05.2020 and the petitioner-accused No.1 has turned off his mobile on

30.09.2021, the present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant on '1 0.03.2022 i.e., there is a delay in lodging the complaint and the reason for such delay remained unexplained. lt is evident from the record that the de facto complainant is in the habit of filing similar com plaints.

9. The petitioner-accused No.1 and the de facto complainant are majors, they are in relationship since 2020 and they have participated in I consensual sex. The de facto complainant, aged about 26 years as on the date of lodging complaint, being a married woman and mother of two children, was matured and intelligent enough to understand the significance and the consequences of the moral or immoral quality of act she was consenting to and it cannot be said that she acted under the alleged false promise given by the petitioners herein and or under the misconception of fact while giving consent to have sexual relationship with the petitioner-accused No.1. For such consensual acts, lhe 6 petitioner-accused No.1 and his family members cannot be made liable. The aforesaid judgments are squarery appricabre to the facts of the present case. ln the said circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to sheer abuse of process of the law and the same are liable to be quashed. ',l0. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos..l to 4 in F.l.R.No.1Bg of 2022 of P S. Raidurgam, Cyberabad District. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. AH ED ABDULLA KHAN TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Smt Justice J (For Her Lordships kind Perusal) vadi Sridevi To,

1. The XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar. 2. The Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabd- 3. 1'1 LR Copies 4. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

5. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Courl for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad

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

7. One CC to Sri K.Durga Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies NVB/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 ORDER CRLP.No.2950 of 2022 ,r", /:t iiO /Y 2 3 AUE 2025 $" D t S f-'i'rT,-\ .c ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION g &I \