The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgmenl of Ansaar Mohammad v. The State of Rajasthanl held that in the event of the complainanUvictim willingly

Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

2. P. Haseena Begum, Wo. P. Chand Pasha, Aged about.20 yrs, Occ. House wife, Rio. Vemula village of ltikyala Mandal. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\ilemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings vide S.C. No.156 of 2022 pending on the file of Honble I Addl. District and Sessions . Judge, At Gadwal, arising in connection with F.l.R. No.94 of 2020 on the file of P.S. Kodandapur and all consequential proceedings arising thereunder against the Petitioner/Accused l.A. NO: 1OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to eitend the interim order dated 2010912023 passed in lA.No. '1 of 2022 in Crl.P.No. 9691 of 2022 fll final disposal of the above criminal petition l.A. NO: 1OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant lnterim Stay of all further proceedings- vide S.C. No.156 of 2022 pending on the file of Honble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge' At 7 Gadwal, arising in connection with F.l.R. No.94 of 2020 on the file of p.s. Kodandapur and arr consequentiar proceedings arising thereunder against the Petitioner/Accused, pending disposai of the ab6ve Criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri c vTKRAM CHANDRA ,Advocate for the petitioner and the Mrs, s.Madhavi Asst pubric Prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No'r. and Mrs, G Jaya Reddy Legar Aid Advocate for the Respondent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER a THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETI TION No.9691 of 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.p.C. by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in S.C.No.156 oI 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Gadwal, arising out of Crime No.94 of 2020 of p.S. Kodandapur, Jogulamba-Gadwal District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 376(1)(b), 366,411and 420 of tpC.

2. Heard Mr. C.Vikram Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner Mrs. G.Jaya Reddy, learned legal aid counsel appearing for respondent No.2-de faclo complainant-victim and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. perused the record.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the victim and petitioner- accused are distant relatives. About two years prior to lodging complaint, a marriage proposal pertaining to the victim was made to the petitioner, for which, he refused. Subsequently, on 17.03.2020, the marriage of victim was performed with LW-4/Pinjari Chand Basha. Thereafter, the petitioner, being attracted to her physical appearance and driven by illicit intentions, develbpqd familiarity with both the victim and her husband. 2 Under this prelext, he began to frequently visit their residence and habitua'y contacted the victim through phone during the absence of her husband. On the false promise of marriage and under the guise of love, the petitioner deceitfu'y induced the victim and forcibry participated in sexual intercourse with her. on suspicion, Lw-4 warned both of them. Thereafter, on the false assurances made by the petitioner, the victim along with her son went to her pardntal home at Vemula on 10.10.2020, from where' the petitioner took her and her son on his motorcycre forcibry to Gadwal to enjoy her sexuary. The petitioner admitted the victim in the Government Hospital, Gadwal, and thereafter, went to search for a rented room, but was unable to find a suitable room. After two days, the Porice Kodandapur ca'ed them to the porice Station. Since the husband and parents of victim are not interested to take her home, the police admitted her at Sakhi Center, Gadwal. On 30.01 .2020, when she went to the house of petitioner, he arong with his famiry members beat her and thrown cylinder. Hence, the present complaint. 4. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.94 of 2020 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under sections 366, 417, 420 and 494of lpC. During the course of investigation, on recording the confession-cum_seizure panchanama of petitioner, Section of Law was altered to Sections 376(1Xb), 366, 417 and 420 of lpC. After 3 completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed, the same was taken cognizance and numbered as S.C.No.1 56 of 2022.

5. Learned counser for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. on the alleged date of incident i.e., 10.10.2020, the petitioner was on his officiar duty distributing Bathukamma sarees. To support the same, he has fired attendance certificates and photographs. He further submits that the victim bore grudge against the petitioner for refusing her marriage proposal and has wantonly foisted the present complaint against him with all false allegations only to lake revenge on him for not marrying her. The victim herself voluntarily left the home, but the petitioner did not take her forcibly. The victim has created a galata and nuisance on 21 .04.2021 ar the house of petitioner, as such, the mother of petitioner has lodged a complaint against her, which was registered as a case in Crime No.52 of 2021 of P.s. Gadwal Rural. He further submits that no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioner hence the offences alleged against him would not be attracted. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant public prosecutor and learned legal aid counsel in one voice contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. All the allegations levelled in the 4 complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the petition

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgmenl of Ansaar Mohammad v. The State of Rajasthanl held that in the event of the complainanUvictim willingly stayed in a relationship with the appellant, and thereafter, if the relationship did not work out, eventually, no offence under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC is made out. Further, in the judgment of Shambhu Kharwar y. Stafe..of lJttar Pradesh2, lhe Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since the relationship between parties was purely consensual and as the complainant is aged 32 years, she is aware of her actions. Thus, the ingredients of offence of rape were not made out.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT of Dethi)3, at paragraph No.22 held as follows: "ln the instant case, the prosecutrix who herself was a married woman having three children, could not be said to have acted under the alleged false promise given by the appellant or under the misconception of fact while giving the consent to have sexual relationship with the appellant. Undisputedly, she continued to have such relationship with him at least for about five years till she gave complaint in the year 2015. Even if the allegations made by her in her deposition before the couft, are taken on their face value, then also to construe such allegations as 'rape' by the appellant, would be stretching the case loo far- The prosecutrix being a married woman and the | 2022 Lrue Law {SC) -s99 ' (2024) I SCC 4q6 I lzozty rs scc trts mother of three children was matured and inte igent enough to understand the significance and the conseguences of the moral or immoral quality of act she was consenting to. Even otherwise, if her entire conduct during the course of such relationship with the accused, is closely seen, it appears that she had betrayed her husband and three children by having relationship wth the accused, for whom she had developed liking for him. She had gone to stay with him during the subsiifence of her maniage with her husband, to live a befter tife with the accused. ..."

9. As seen from the record, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner and victim are in live-in relationship and they are majors. The sequence of events mentioned above would go to show that the sex between the pelitioner and victim was purely consensual in nature. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had made a false promise to satisfy his lust. No question of promise to marry arises inasmuch as the victim is a ) \ married woman and she knew that a legal marriage with the petitioner was not possible under law. The offence of rape cannot be constituted on the basis of the allegations in the FIR and as seen from the complaint, it is apparent that the consent was not given by her on the basis of any I I m isconception.

10. The victim, aged about 20 years as on the date of lodging complaint, being a married woman and having one son, was matured and intelligent enough to understand the significance and the consequences of the moral or immoral quality of act she was consenting to and it cannot be said that she acted under the alleged false promise given by the 6 petitioner and or under the misconception of fact white giving consent to have sexual rerationship with the petitioner. For such consensuar acts, the petitioner alone cannot be made liable, The aforesaid judgments are squarely appricabre to the facts of the present case. rn the said circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to sheer abuse of process of the law and the same are liable to be quashed.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in S.c.No.156 0f 2022 0n the file of the learned r Additionar District and Sessions Judge at Gadwar. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand glosed. sd/- P.CH. NAGABHUSHAM84 DEPUW REGISTRAR I ,/TRUE GOPY// t I \+--_-_ SECTION OFFICER To, t. The I Addl. District and Sessions Judge' At Gadwal' 2. The Station House Officer,Police Station Kondandapur'Jogulamba Gadwal District

3. One CC to SRl. C VIKRAM CHANDRA Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SMT G.JAYA REDDY ,LEGAL AID Advocate IOPUC] Two CD CoPies Abl AG/PSL I THE SI,q /6 oR {' SCJUT M l,r: D""-, L.' . "/ i/ HIGH COURT DATED:0210712025 ORDER CRLP.No.9691 ot 2022 GRLP IS ALLOWED x4 ) 0