The High Court · 2025

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 S.C.No.5412024 pending on the file of lV Additional District Judge, Nalgonda District against petitioner/accused LA. NO: 1OF 2025 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 stay of all further proceeding including appearance of petitioner/accused in S.C.No.54l2O24 pending on the file of lV Additional District Judge, Nalgonda District pending disposal of quash proceeding This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A SANJEEVA REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER '4* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKT,RAMJI ' CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10001 OF "tt25 ORDER This Crirnrnal Petition is frled under Section 5ll iof the Bharatrya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (heretnafter 'thi: BNSS ) seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petrtioner rn S C No 54 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned lVAdditional t) ;trict Judge -cum- Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nalgonda 2 The petitroner is sole accused in the afores;r i Sessions Case facing accusations for the offences punishable under : ections 376(2)(n) 417 420 of the lndian Penal Code,'1 860 3 Heard ltilr h Sanleeva Reddy learned counse'l for the petitroner and lVlr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional )ubllc Prosecutor, representing respondent No. 1 -State

4. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 13.0{\ 2022, respondent No 2/de facto complarnant lodged a complaint i llegrng that the petitioner/accused induced her into a relationship on I re pretext of love and, under a false promise of marriage, sexually e;lloited her at her residence Thereafter, the petitroner allegedly moved l er to Hyderabad, where they resrded in a rented accommodation lt is lr rther alleged that the petitioner compelled her to sell her house for a surr of Rs.3,00,0001, 2 N7ri./ (.ri.l).\rt. lt)001 ol )02) which he appropriated for his own use. Subsequently, when the complainant became pregnant and insisted upon marriage, the petitioner refused, stating that he was no longer interested continuing the relationship, thereby abandonrng her

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the petitioner and respondent No 2 are major individuals, who engaged in a consensual relationship, without any element of coercion or inducement It was further argued that the allegations regarding misappropriation of money were fabricated, and that neither the complaint nor the complainant's statement disclose the essential ingredients constituting the alleged offences. Accordingly, the counsel prayed that the proceedings be quashed

6. Conversely, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the complainant's statement clearly indicates that the petitioner, from the very inception, had engaged in a sexual relationship with her under a false promise of marriage lt was further potnted out that in the discharge petition filed before the trial Court, the petitioner contested these issues, but upon detailed consideration of the available materials, the trial Court rightly opined that a prima facie case exists against the petitioner. On that basis, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the criminal petition.

7. I have perused the materials on record. / ,,|,{i 3 \ / 1(, / /000/ l )0)5 l.r,'.P "0.

8. As per the version of respondent No.2/de facto complainant, the petitioner/accused professed love towards her and, ur Cer a promise of marriage, shifted her to Hyderabad, where he estal) shed a physical relationship with her. The petitioner's own statement, ;rsserting that the relationship was consensual, prima facie amounts to an admission of physical intimacy. llowever, whether such consent w;r obtained on the basis of a false promise of marriage, amounting t, r inducement or deception, and whether it thereby constitutes sexual ( xploitation withtn the meaning of law are issues that cannot be conclusi,/ rly determined at this preliminary stage. Such questions are matters cf evrdence, which necessarily require examination and cross examinat rn of witnesses during trial

9. lt is well settled that consent obtained under a nisconception of fact, including a false promise of marriage, falls w I tin the ambit of Section 90 of the: lndian Penal Code ('lPC'). ther:by vitiating the voluntariness of such consent. The Hon'ble Supreme Sourt in Uday v State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46, and Pramod Su,ys67u, Pawar v Sfafe of Maharashtra, (2019) I SCC 608, has hel<l that where it is establrshed that the promise of marriage was false f 'r m inception and made with no intention of being fulfilled, the act wou ( amount to rape under Section 375 IPC ln contrast, if the promise rn,i s made in good I I I I faith but b- could not ultimately be fulfilled due to c r:umstances, the 4 N7R ( .t..1) ,\o. 100()l oil0li offence may not be attracted. This determination, however, necessarily requires appreciation of evidence, which cannot be undertaken at the stage of considering a petition for quashment under Section 482 of the Code of Crrminal Procedure ('CrPC') '10 Therefore, the mere reliance on the fact that both the petitioner and respondent No.2 are majors, or that the complainant voluntarily accompanied him, cannot be taken as conclusive proof of free and informed consent At this stage, the Court cannot embark upon a detarled evaluation of the ver'acity of the statements or weigh the probative value of the pleadings. Drawing definitive conclusrons based solely on the petitioner's version or isolated averments would be premature and contrary to the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC

11. ln view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the prayer for quashing the proceedings. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Pend!-ng miscellaneous applrcations, if any, shall stand closed sd/- L. LAKSHMi BABU EPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII s CTION OFFICER To, 1 TherlV Additional District Judge_cum_Metropolitan Session Judge, Nalgonda 2 UL:lXt:"ts,3,?,:se officer' Nalgonda I rown police station, Narsonda, ...,.r -;Sii

3. One CC to SRI A SANJEEVA REDDY Advocate [OPU,l 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State rf Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTI 5. Two CD Copies VM/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 0610812025 I l ORDER CRLP.No.10001 ol 2025 4 r I I .\\ ,,. i -": l: :.' i'.i \,.--_ ',2 i l, Lr-i ?$fr /i .,' ;: c. :.,' ! i i t i i !t I I t i a i i ! ; I DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION \ flr/t