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 F.l.R Bearing No.179 of 2025 dated 22.O8.2025 pending for lnvestigation on the file of S.H.O Police Moghalpura, Hyderabad against the petitioner herein for the offences alleged under sections. 69 and 318(2) of BNS. l.A. NO: 2OF 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 grant STAY of all further proceedings including arrest / appearance of the petitioner/ Accused in F.l.R Bearing No.179 of 2025 dated 22.08.2025 pending for lnvestigation on the file of S.H.O Police Moghalpura, Hyderabad, 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 KALUVALA VENKATA VARA PRASAD, Advocate for the Petitioner a r Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the R( ;pondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER w- ,/ THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITON No.1 1074 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.'179 of 2025 on the file of lMoghalpura Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 69, 318(2) of BNS

2. Heard Sri Kaluvala Venkata Vara prasad learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner had physical relationship with the respondent No.2 under the promise of marriage but, he got married to another woman and further has told her that he would divorce his wife and marry her. On realizing that the petitioner has cheated her, the present complaint is lodged by the respondent No.2, based on which the police have registered Crime No.'l 79 oi2025 for the offences under Sections 69, 318(2) of BNS.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.2 is a Post Graduate and has knowingly entered into l Crl P No 11074 aI2a25 the relationship with the petitioner herein and norr that he has married another lady, she has filed the present petitic r with all false allegations After having a consensual relationship f I so long ' she cannotallegethatthepetitionerhadaphysicalrelatilrshipwithher based on a false promise of marriage. lt is only ou1 lf vengeance' the preserrt complaint is lodged He further sub I itted that the respondentNo.2usedtoresideasatenantinthepettioner'shouse and thus, she is pretty well aware about the marriag: arrangements of the petitioner' But, she had kept quite till three rl lnths after the marriage of the petitioner and has come up lv t t the present complaint' which is totally false and that till lodging rl, this complaint she has never complained to anyone about the said rllegations and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No'2-de faclo complainant has submitted that the petitioner r- rs forced the respondentNo.2intophysicalrelationshipwithhim:rrdthatshewas putunderfearthathewouldnotmarryherifshedis:csesthefactto any other person. Putting her under that fear, ll I had physical relationship with her. He further submitted that sir< e the petitioner and the respondent No.2 are residing in the sal e building' the petitioner had easy access to the respondent Nr 2 and used to /' -": I I ! i I ! ! I r 3 EfD,J Cn-P- No.11ol4ot2025 exploit her situation in the absence of the elders He further submitted that the petitioner has no grounds under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record

7. The contents of the complaint itself discloses that there has been physical relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No.2-de facto complainant since 2003. The respondent No 2 is aged 28 years as on the date of the complaint i.e. 22'08'2025' Thus' she must have been aged 26 years in2023. Therefore, she is a matured lady, who is also into employment. lt is made out from her counter that she is working as a private employee lt is further borne out fromtherecordthattherespondentNo.2hasnotrevealedaboutthe allegedrelationshipwiththepetitioner,toanyonetillhismarriage whichwasperformedon0g.05'2025.Thecontentionofthelearned counsel for the respondent No.2 is that since the respondent No 2 is a tenant in the house of the petitioner, he had easy access to her' lt is an admitted fact that both of them resided in the same building' Thus, she was well aware about the arrangements made for the marriage of the petitioner and till three months after the performance of the marriage, she kept quite without lodging any complaint' lf at L-= \ 4 c, t. P. N o. I 1 o' / "f r3 i15 all she was forced into the physicar rerationship, i one time or other she could have revealed the same at least to l.r,> 1.1.16fhsr or any of the family members, which she has not done I is only after the marriage of the petitioner that she reveared about r re said fact to her parents. lt is further alleged by the respondr: rt No.2 that the petitioner has promised her that he wourd marry i r r by divorcing his wife, which again appears to be atrocious. Evr: if the petitioner says so, how a woman aged 28 years wourd rerieve the said assertion if any made by the petitioner. Thus. it rppears that the respondent No.2 is not serious about such relatior ships. There are only bald ailegations in the compraint and the : R. But, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.p.C,, and in he counter the respondent No.2 has come out with the details c, incident. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitte j that there are improvements made by the respondent No.2 in her ;tatement. This Court is not inclined to look into the improvements or :ontradictions if any in the statement of respondent No.2_LW. 1. Be r g an educated, matured and employed woman, she would be wr-. aware of the consequences of any such physical relationship wittr a male person. Thus, when she is aware about the consequences. t would assume the characteristics of a consensual relationship. Onct when there is ) EIO,J Crl,P. No.l1071o12025 consensual relationship, she cannot allege the offence under Section 69 of BNS against the Petitioner

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and anotherl wherein it was observed that the fact that the complainant continued to have a physical relationship for a long time, without any rnsistence on marriage would indicate the unlikelihood of any such promisemadebytheappellantinmarryinganditwouldindicatethat therelationshipwasaconsensualone.Theirlordshipsheldthat: "ln our opinion, the longer the duration of the physical relationship between the partners without protest and insistence by female partner 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 " I a Thus, it was held that allowing the criminal proceedings against the appellant in the facts and circumstances to continue where no criminal liability can be attached would amount to abuse of process of court. Therefore, the proceedings were quashed'

9. ln the present case also there was continued physical relationship for a considerable period of about two years without I 2024 Lawsuit (sC) 1049 6 Crl.F. N..11O,4 "f rlijs there being any insistence of marriage. Hence. : tplying the above said decision to the case on hand and in view ,f the above held discussion, it is deemed appropriate to quaslr the proceedings against the petitioner 10 Accordingly, the Criminal petition allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner_accused seel.r rg to quash the proceedings in FIR No..l 79 of 2025 on the file of t/ rghalpura police Station, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall I tand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. I SRINIVASA REDDY ASS STANT REGISTRAR a.' ' r-; . SECTION OFFICER The VlllAddl Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Namoallv q! irv rvqrrr The SHO, pS Moshatpura, Htd;A;;.' i,-3f;3.."[?f,""t1t]ic Proseiutor' State orrelansana, I igh court Buildinss, rosRr KA[UVALA VENKATA VARA PRASAT), Advocate [opuc] To, 1 2 ?#S 33 /DL

4. 5. GE I HIGH COURT DATED:2111112025 ORDER CRLP.No.1 1074 of 2025 ItrL 4y't /.\ ^qs \\' -:- \\ v (] 4! I '-) o IL \2,.,:'. -,-l ALLOWING THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS