High Court · 2025

I.A. NO:1O F 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 bep leased to stay all furth er Proceedings including appeara nce of the Petitioner in SC No.413 of 2022 On the file of Hon'ble SPecial Sessions Judge FTC for Atrocities Against Women-|, Hyderabad, pending disPosal of the present quas h This Petition coming on for hearing' upon perusing the Memorandum of -upon hearing the arguments ot Grounds of Criminal t"'-t'i'"^ 'nd Sri D Sudharsh'n, eO'o"ut""'iJ' the Petitioner and Smt S' Madhavi' Assistant petition. -7 ft:illffi|:;:):;r on beharr or the Respondent No 1 a.cj none i ppeared ror the The Court rnirdr: the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.57 55 of 2023 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in S C No'413 of 2022 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge FTC for Atrocities against Women-|, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 417, 420,376(1), 323, 506 of lndian Penal Code (for short'lPC').

02. Heard tt/lr D.Sudharshan, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and SmtS.tvladhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record'

03. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in 2017, while the de facfo complainant was residing in a hostel and was pursuing M.A. English, she became acquainted with the petitioner herein, who is an Assistant Professor' Under the false promise of marrying her as soon as he divorces his wife, the petitioner induced the de facfo complainant and participated in sexual intercourse' Later, the petitioner denied 2 to fitarnr the de facfo complainant and neckel he,,r out of the house'. 13ersing on the said complaint, a case rn C rime No.25 of 2lr.r' 1 9 After completion of investigation ch arg(, sheet was filed th3 same was taken cognizance and nurrbered as S.C N:r.,113 of 2022. 04 Learned counsel for the petitioner su[mitted that the ;retitioner was innocent and has been fak;ely implicated in the ,::aser. He had nothing to do with the above ,rllegations mader agta nst him. The police filed chat-ge she,et after a laps': c'f l,rrs 16ra two years and the reason ,or r;uch deray is nol ex1:l;rined. Further, the de facto conrplarnart is in the habit o, b ackmailing. On the same set o. allegalions, she filed a ccrrnplaint against one Baflakantr Kr:shirv Kumar Anurag 13ersing on the said complaint, the rolice. ,Vladhapur Police {}trrrirn. Cyberabad, have registered a case in Crime No.7ti1 of ',D21, dated 29.06.2021 against him. Hov,iever, the proceerdin 3s, against him were quashed by the, Hon,ble Suprenre (,:r>trt in Battanki Keshav Kumar AnuralT vs. Sfafe of Telangana & Anotherl . The complaint filed by the de facto complaina rt does not disclose any specifir: overt act with l Crl.Appeal @ SLp (cr.) \ ( (j).3316 of 2023 specific date, time and place to attribute any specific role to the petitioner and when that is the case, the offences alleged against the petitioner would not attract Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner'

05. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the decision held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and anothel, wherein, at paragraph No'21, it was held as follows: "the altegations in the FIR do not on their face indicate that the promise by the appellant was false, or that the complainant engaged in sexual relations on the basis of this promise. There is no allegation in the FIR that when the appetlant promised to marry the complainant. lt was done in bad faith or with the intention to deceive her. The appellant's failure in 2016 to fulfitl his promise made in 2008 cannot be construed to mean the promise itself was false' The altegations in the FIR indicate that the complainant *ri u*ur" that there existed obstacles to marrying the appellant since 2008, and that she and the appellant continued to engage in sexual relations long after their gefting manied had become a disputed matter' Even ihereafter, the complainant travelled to visit and reside with the appellant at his postings and allowed him to spend his weekends at her residence' The allegations in the FtR belie the case that she was deceived by the appetlant's promise of mariage. Therefore, even if the facfs sef out in the complainant's statements are accepted in totatity, no offence under section 375 IPC has occurred. " '1zors1 s scc 4 X) Contendr-ac Learned Assistant public prost-.cutor frlr the State that there are specific allegations irgainst the petitiorrerr and the truth or otherwise of the allegations IeveleJ against him can only be known afr:er oon(ructing full_ fledgeri tr al before the trial Court, and hence, she prayed to dismisr; t'rer petition. 0]7 As seen from the record it is an adrnitted fact that thr: ltetitioner and de facto complainant lver<,, in live_in relaticrnsl-ic since 2011 , the petitioner har; nercked out the de |'ac,o :omplainant from his house on 1(;.01 .2019, however. lhe present complaint was lodgerl by the de faclo compiairrarr: on 23.0.1 .2019. The reason for su<;h dr:lay in lodging the c.rnpr; irt was unexprained. rt is evident from tre r,-.cord that the de f acto r;omplainant is in the habit of filing l;imitar c :mplaints. The de frc'o complainant has lodged a similar conplairrt against one Ea:lal.anti Keshav Kumar Anurag and the Hon,ble Suprerre Cortrt has quashed the proceedings against him. As seen fronr tre complaint and charge sheet, the lletition€ de fac:lo r: ornplaihant are majors and it aoperlrs that the relationship lntween them is consensual in nature. The de facto complaina,nt, aged 21 years is aware of her actir>ns and the r and the 5 petitioner alone cannot be made liable for such consensual acts' The aforesaid judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case' lnthesaidcircumstances,theproceedingsagainstthepetitioner are liable to be quashed.

08. This Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in S C No 413 of 2022 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge FTC for Atrocities against Women-I, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed' As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand-clgsgd. SD/. P.PONNA KRIS ASSISTANT REGIST HNA \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER rV Additionalchief Me-tropolit"" *g3'itl'.,,i3;J;l1XT330"o,,"., Hyderabad . +f.ZS:",:iL"JBt3',XE?l;"?Ui,'irr"gi;'b;;:r"'tnestate-oiriansanaat Hvderabad (OUT) ijl,l'#iJ dni o sudharshan' Advocate [oPUCl Two CD CoPies To,

1. J. 4 5 ABK HIGH GOTJFT DATED: 0110712025 ORDER CRLP.No.57ti5 :f 2023 ALLOWNG TIIE :RIMINAL PETITION l I I , I l'l I I I I ..,.;1 o c] ,: ) I 7025 r[. ,\ .:, :/' I