The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing ihe [\4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argums rts of Sri. L. Harish, representing Sri. B. KARTHIK, Advocate for the [:etitioners, Sri. M. Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behe lf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri. B. N/ohan, Advocate for the Respondent Nlc 2. The Court made the following ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7580 of 2024 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in P.R.C.No 57 of 2024 on the file of the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional fi/etropolitan Magistrate at LB Nagar. The offences alleged against the petitioners- accused Nos 2 to 5 are under Sections 417 and 420 read with 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for shorl 'lPC')

02. Heard Sri L.Harish, learned counsel representing Sri B Karthik, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Sri B.[/lohan, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 Perused the record 03(a). ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 became acquainted with the respondent No.2 in the year 2009 while she was pursuing her B.Pharmacy Znd year and residing at H No.8-4-85/3/1 , Uday Nagar Colony, 2 Karmanghat, Saroornagar, opposite to threr house of the accused No"1. It is alleged that the accuserl No.1 attended a family function in her house, thereafter obterrned her mobile number, frequently contacted her, and subse<:,uently proposed his love for her, assuring that he would marry l-er Believing his representations, the respondent No.2 began rreeting him. On 13 01.20'10, when the respondent No.2 was alr:,ne in her house, the accused No.1 allegedly entered and ,:r:mmitted sexual intercourse with her forcibly, against her wil iand consent, on the false pretext of marriage lt is furtl-er alleged that thereafter, on repeated promises of the marrierge, the accused No. t had sexual intercourse with her on s;<:veral occasions against her will and consent. Subsequenfly, fre accused No.1 moved to the United States of America (USt\t on 25.12.2014, assuring the respondent No.2 that they would marry after settling there However, despite her attempts .:o join him in the USA, the respondent No.2 could not secure a vrsa. and the accused No.1 stopped responding to her. 03(b). lt is further alleged that on 17.O5.i,017 the parents of the respondent No.2 performed her ma"riage with one Ajaykanth, who was already setfled in t.re USA. On '\-

20.O7.2017, the respondent No.2 joined her husband in California. lt is alleged that the accused No.1 thereafter contacted her, pressurised her to leave her husband, and in October 2017, met her in a hotel in California where he committed sexual intercourse with her against her will despite her being married. The said Ajaykanth, husband of the respondent No.2, came to know about the love affair of the accused No.'l with the respondent No 2 lt is further alleged that the accused No.1 persuaded the respondent No.2 to seek divorce, and arranged her travel to lndia by booking a ticket Within a month, the respondent No.2 obtained divorce from her husband and later returned to the USA for higher studies During that period, the accused No.1 allegedly maintained a live-in relationship with her, frequently taking her to different hotels and having sexual intercourse with her 03(c). lt is further alleged that after the respondent No.2 completed her lVlS, she secured employment and continued to live with the accused No.1 for several months, even extending financial assistance for his business. Later, the accused No.1 moved to Chicago, where they lived together for about two months. Thereafter, from January 2022, the accused No.1 4 i,.: stopped communicating with the responde>rt No 2. ln April 2023, the accused No.1 again contacted her s,tating that he had cancelled a marriage proposal and assured l.rer that he would marry her within two months after purr:l.,asing a house. However, the respondent No 2 later dis;c cvered that the accused No.1 was marrying another woman )istressed by the said development, she returned to lndia. wenl into depression, and attempted suicide on 03 12.2023, for which she was admitted to Aware Globar Hospitars. rt is f.i.ther aileged that during subsequent discussions, the famill, elders of the respondent No.2 were assured by the pelitioners_accused Nos.2 to 5 that they would cancel the proposerj marriage of the accused No.'1 and arrange his marriage with the respondent No.2. However, the respondent No.2 later caxe to know that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 had, in fa:t. solemnized the marriage of the accused No.1 with another wornan secrefly.

04. Learned counsel for the petitionerr:s submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 had no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences lt is contended that there was neither dishonest nor fraudurent intention r:n the part of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 to cheat the res:ondent No.2. lt \ .. \. t, \. \- 5 is further submitted that the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 were in a live-in relationship and that the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 5 are in no manner connected with the allegations levelled in the charge sheet. The alleged incidents are stated to have taken place in the United States of America The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the accused No.1, while petrtioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are his sister and brother-in-law, and all of them are permanent residents of Rangareddy District, Telangana. lt is also contended that there are no specific or direct allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 in the charge sheet The contents of the same do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute offences under Sections 417 and 420 of lPC. Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings agarnst the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 5

05. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State- respondent No l as well as the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition 5

06. A perusal of the entire recorcl reveals that the accused No.1 and the respondent No2 wer,- in love with each other and were living together in a live-in r=lationship in the United States of America. The petitioners-e::used Nos 2 to 5 are only the family members of the accused lr o 1. lt is manifest from the record that the principal and substantial allegations are primarily directed against the accused No 1 t further appears that the conduct of the accused No.1 towards the respondent No 2 was the primary factor which prompte<l her to lodge the present criminal case.

07. As seen from the contents of tl-e charge sheet, except for a vague statement that the pe.itioners_accused Nos.2 to 5 had performed the marrrage of ac:cused No.1 with another girl, no other allegation is attribute,l to them. The charge sheet, being the outcome of invesrir:tation, does not disclose whether any such marriage of acculred No.1 was in fact performed, nor does it indicate the name lr identity of the girl with whom the alleged marriage is said to l^ave taken place. Significantly, all the substantive allegations ,a.e drrected only against accused No.'l . There are no spercific details or descriptive particulars of any act or instanc,: evidencing the 7 involvement of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 in the alleged offence. Such generalized and sweeping assertions, unsubstantiated by concrete material or particularized allegations, cannot form a legally sustainable basis for criminal prosecution. ln the absence of clear and specific allegations, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 5 would amount to a sheer abuse of the process of law

08. ln Sfate of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and othersl the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: "ln the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or othenrtise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possibie to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (l) where the allegations made in the First lnformation Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima t '1992 scc (suPP) 1 335 8 facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, (!)where the allegations in the First lnforrt,,ttion Repori and other materials, if any, accompanying tlte F lR. do not disclose a cognizable offence, .it,stifyrng an investigation by police off rcers under Secttrtn 1 56(1) of the Code except under an order of a ltrl ar1 i.,l rate within the puruiew of Section 155(2) of the Code: (!) where the uncontroverted allegatic'r's made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence c.otlected in suppotT of the same do not dis c/ose the commission of any offence and make t)uf a case against the accused; (!) where the allegations in the FIR do nor ;onstrtute a cognizable offence but constitute only a nor -cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a rttice officer without an order of a lvlagistrate as corlel?rl) tated under Secllon 155(2) of the Code, (!) where the allegations made in the FIR r:r complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable or, 'he basis of which no prudent person can ever r=,tch a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground frtr proceeding against the accused; (9) where there is an express tegal bar engtr:tfted in any of the provisions of the Code or the cctr.:;erned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instil rted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedtngs and/or where there ts a speciflc provision in the (..ode or the 9 concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

09. ln the present case, as discussed hereinabove, it is evident from the material available on record that the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 were in a live-in relationship in the United States of America, and there is no material to suggest any element of cheating or fraudulent intention attributable to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5. The charge sheet does not furnish any proof of the alleged marriage of accused No.1, nor does it even mention the name or identity of the girl with whom the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 are alleged to have performed such marriage. The charge sheet is conspicuously silent with respect to any specific role, overt act, or participation of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 in the commission of the alleged offence. The principal allegations stand confined exclusively to accused No.1. lt appears that the present criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with an "t" / / I 10 1,:: ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance r:n the petitioners_ accused and with a view to spite them cllr_o to private and personal grudge. Even assuming that the allegations in the charge sheet to be true in their entirety, they :c not, on the face of it, constitute any offence as against the 1:,r.titioners-accused Nos.2 to 5. Therefore, the present case falls within the parameters of point Nos.3 and T of Bhajan Lal,s case cited supra.

10. ln view of the aforesaid facts arrrl circumstances, and having regard to the well-setfled principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Cou,1 in the decision referred supra, this Court is of the considerecl opinion that the essential ingredients required to constitute th:: offences under Sections 417 and 420 read with 34 of lpC :.e not made out against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5, Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners_ accused Nos 2 to 5, and subjecting them to he rigor of trial, would amount to an abuse of the process of ta,r,,r. and the same are liable to be quashed. 11 11 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 in P R C No.57 of 2Q24 on the file of the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional lVletropolitan Magistrate at LB Nagar, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed /- L. VIJAYA LAXMI TANT REGISTRAR / A ,TRUE COPY// To,

1. The V Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Addl. Metr Nagar Ranga Reddy District.

2. The Station House Officer, Polibe Station Saroornagar, Rachakonda. 3. One CC to Sri. B. KARTHIK, Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to Sri. B. MOHAN, Advocate tOpUCl. 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Tetangana SECTION OFFICER iitan Magistrate at L.B. at Hyderabad [OUT].

6. Two CD Copies TTS/psl JW I I t i I I 1 ! HIGH COURT DATED: 25t0812025 ORDER CRLP.No.7580 ol 2024 I .),.-.., ii;'t a si+ o 1 t\ * *. CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED I p