The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Sai Babu, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M. Ramchandera Reddy, Addrtional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADIT RIDEVI CRIMINAL P ETITION No.1023 1 ot 202,j ORD ER This Criminal petition is filed by the petitiorr rr_accused seeking to quash the proceedings again:; him in C.C.No.3424 of 2022 on the file of the lll Addi:rrnal Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offe-:es under Sections 411, 420 of lndian penal Code (for short , pC,).

2. Heard M/s K.Sai Babu, learned cours el for the petitioner-accused and Sri M Ramachandra Red<|, , learned Additional Public prosecutor for the State. Tlr.rs is 6e representation on behalf of respondent No.2. perused :l e record. The case of the prosecution, in brief, that the respondent No.2 got married to a person and taving 2 children. ln 2015, she got separated from her rusband without divorce and started living alone at Manik: rda and surviving by working as a beautician. While so, the accused person got acquaintance with the respondent l,l t.2 and exchanged phone numbers and were in live in rel;r ionship, promising that he will marry her and when asked to ;lfill the 2 promise made by him he denied to marry and stopped responding to calls made by the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner and a case in Crime No.352 of 2022 of Banjara Hills Police Station was registered against the petitioner. After completion of investigation, charge sheet r,vas filed, the same was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.3424 of 2022 on the file of the lll Additional Chief lVletropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The allegations do not disclose prima facie case of the offences alleged against the petitioner. lt L submitted that the respondent No.2 approached the petitioner stating that she is unmarried and not having parents and she is a beautician and running beauty parlour. Believing the same he started visiting her ancj then she proposed the petitioner to marry her. He never used to stay with her. Later petitioner came to know that she was already married and having grown up children and not given divorce to her husband. When the petitioner asked about the same, she informed that t a- ."/t' 3 the whereabouts of her husband were not knovlr to her and she has not given divorce to him. Therefore, 1t e petitioner stopped visiting her and even not responding 1r her calls Even as per charge sheet and 161 staterr ent of the witnesses recorded by the police were taken into consideration, it will not amount to chea,i rg as the respondent no.2 has not taken divorce from her I usband, as marrying any person without obtaining divor'; I from her spouse will amount to further initiation of a crime. Though the petitioner is not having any intention to clrr :at initially, subsequently when he came to know that she \ /as already married and having children without taking legir divorce he refused to marry her.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner plzrr ed reliance on a decision held by the Hon'ble Supreme Cou 1 in Mahesh Damu Khare v. Stafe of Maharashfra', whereirr it was held as under: " 26 ii) The physical relationship was go't g on routinely. But the complainant in her compJain ;tates that after she got a rented room in Shiruane. Nerul Secror 7, Navi Mumbai, in December, 20 'r , the appellant used to come every day and had , exual 'uozs cnt.L..t.t68 4 intercourse everyday, though without her consent and by giving false promise of mariage.

27. Thus, from the above it appears that it is more of an extra-marital affair during the afcresaid period without any rnslsfence by the complainant for getting maried to the appellant. The fact that the complainant continued to have a physical relationship for a long time without any insistence on maniage would indicate the unlikelihood of any such promise made by the appellant for marrying her and it rather indicates that the relationship was a consensual one. ln our opinion, the longer the duration of the physical relationship between the pariners without protest and insistence by the female parlner for marriage would be indicative of a consensual relationship rather than a relationship based on false promise of marriage by the male partner and thus, based on misconception of fact. " He further relied upon another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. The Stafe of Maharashtra & ANR.z, wherein in para 9, it Was held as under. "9. ln our considered view, this ls a/so nof a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. A consensual relationship turning. sour or paftners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence. This Court has time and again warned against the misuse of the provisions, and has termed it a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section 376 IPC.' 'z ArisinB out of SLP (Crl.) No.10044 of 2024 5 Hence prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioner

6. Learned Additional public prosecr tor for the State contended that there are specific allega:i tns against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise of th: allegations levelled against him can only be known after cor Jucting full_ fledged trial before the trial Court, and henc: prays to dismiss the petition.

7. ln Stafe of Haryana and others v. r)Lt.Bhajan Lal and others3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as foll: rus: The following categories of cases can be stated by way ol i ustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or I ) inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.p.C. can be exercised D\ the High Couft either to prevent abuse of the process of ar y"Courl-or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not l. e possible to lay down any precise, ctearty defined and sufficienfly : rannelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give ar. xhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should bc )xercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the First lnformation R) )ot1 or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value ancl I :cepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or r ake out a case agamsl the accused; (2) Where the allegations in the First lnformation Repor,and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.t.R. do not (,sclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by potice of,.i ers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an 6rder of a lagistrate within the purview of Section 1 SS(2) of the Code; ' 1992 scc (cri) 426 6 'I (3) Where the uncontrovefted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in suppoi of tha same do not drsc/ose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a iust conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution anC continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggiieved pafty; (7) Where a criminat 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.

8. As seen from the record, it is evident that the de faclo complainant was already married to another person and having two children and living separately without taking divorce from her ex-husband and insisting the present petitioner to marry her. lt appears that the 2nd respondent is well aware of the acts done by her. This Court opines that long duration of physical relationship between partners without protest and insistence by female partner for marriage, would be indicative of a consensual relationship and in such cases, no allegations of cheating can be made which would fall within the scope of Section 420 of lPC. As 7 seen from the complaint and charge sheet, the petilir ner and the de facto complainant are majors and it appe a 's that the relationship between them is consensual in nature. de facto complainant, who is aged 30 years and well aware ) her actions 'he and the petitioner alone cannot be made lial>: for such consensual acts. The aforesaid judgment relied on L,r the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Bhajanl: case cited supra are squarely applicable to the facts of the pres:nt case. ln the said circumstances, the proceedings against the 1 etitioner are liable to be quashed.

9. This Criminal Petition is acco:'dingly all: ved and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.(; No.3424 of 2022 on the file of the lll Additional Chief l4etropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous apllications, if any, shall stand closed D S.t\I \LLIKARJUNA RAO SS I ;TAUT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// r SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The lll Additional Chief tr/letropolitan Magistrate' Hyd: abad Z. One CC to Sri K. Sai Babu, Advocate IOPUUI- 5 6;; dd iI L" proii" pi[.b"i1ti, uig|ibou't'tor the S i te or relangana at 4. Trfuo CD CoPies Hvderabad [OUT] Y+' HIGH COURT DATED 10/1112025 .1 /t, l,.i ir,.; . ',,,,\ ,j - :_ _'_- '-.! il L:iffi : '- r +r ,__)r- .o : ORDER CRLP No.10231of2024 CRIIVINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED +@d"a w -- r\\$'r'-