Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 927
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2879 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3316 of 2023]
Decided On : 29-05-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Amish Aggarwala, AOR Mr. Kuldeep Jauhari, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Rape – Even assuming that accused appellant retracted from his promise to marry complainant, it cannot be said that he indulged in sexual intercourse with de-facto complainant under a false promise of marriage.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(2)(n) read with Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Rape – Rejection of quashing application – Accused appellant was not keeping his word to marry de-facto complainant and was showing reluctance in abiding by terms of agreement – Police has already submitted closure report which indicates that previously also, de-facto complainant had lodged a similar complaint accusing one Assistant Professor for identical allegations of cheating and sexual exploitation on pretext of false promise of marriage – De-facto complainant is suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, her threats of self-harm and genuineness of transcriptions of chats which took place between accused appellant and de-facto complainant have not been disputed/denied – There is no prima facie material on record to substantiate allegations of cheating or sexual intercourse under false promise of marriage against accused appellant – Accused appellant was absolutely justified in panicking and backing out from proposed marriage upon coming to know of aggressive sexual behaviour and obsessive nature of de-facto complainant – Even assuming that accused appellant retracted from his promise to marry complainant, it cannot be said that he indulged in sexual intercourse with de-facto complainant under a false promise of marriage or that offence was committed by him with de-facto complainant on the ground that she belonged to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community – Impugned FIR is a bundle of lies full of fabricated and malicious unsubstantiated allegations levelled by complainant – Facts on record clearly establish vindictive and manipulative tendencies of complainant – Criminal case quashed. (Paras 19, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Appellant seeks to assail the order dated 13th December, 2022, passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, whereby the petition [Criminal Petition No. 1759 of 2022] filed by appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 103 of 2022 registered at the Police Station Madhapur, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was rejected.
Findings of Court:
In FIR No. 751 of 2021, de-facto complainant has not even made a whisper about accused appellant dumping her on the ground of her caste. Apparently this allegation which has been set out in subsequent FIR No. 103 of 2022 lodged almost after seven months is nothing but a sheer exaggeration which must be discarded.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. Despite service of notice, respondent No. 2-de-facto complainant1 [Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘de-facto complainant’] has not put in appearance.
4. The appellant herein seeks to assail the order dated 13th December, 2022, passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad2 [Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘High Court’] whereby the petition3 [Criminal Petition No. 1759 of 2022] filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19734 [Hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’] seeking quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 103 of 2022 registered at the Police Station Madhapur, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 18605 [Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘IPC’] and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19896 [Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘SC/ST(POA) Act’] was rejected.
5. Succinctly stated, the facts essential for disposal of the appeal are noted herein-below.
6. The de-facto complainant i.e. respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before Police Station Madhapur alleging inter alia that she had earlier filed a complaint against the accused i.e. appellant herein, and during the course of enquiry of the said complaint, the appellant approached the police station along with his mother J. Vijayalakshmi and a resolution was arrived at, between the parties in the presence of the Inspector of Police to the effect that the appellant would marry the de-facto complainant and get the marriage registered at the registration office or the Arya Samaj Mandir. A written agreement to this effect was drawn up and affirmed by the de-facto complainant and the appellant by affixing their signatures. However, the accused appellant and his mother started showing reluctance to the marriage on one pretext or the other. They made up an excuse that the next auspicious date for solemnizing the marriage was only on 26th August and stopped communicating with the de-facto complainant or her family about wedding arrangements, etc. The accused appellant then started mentally harassing the complainant with reference to the complaint she had filed at the police station. When she expressed a desire to discuss the wedding arrangements and resolve the issues about the family’s cold behaviour, the accused appellant went to the de-facto complainant’s house on 24th June, 2021 and compelled her to indulge in sexual intercourse without ever intending to go through with the marriage ceremonies. Being perturbed, the de-facto complainant went to the police station on 25th June, 2021 and reported that the accused appellant was not keeping his word and was showing reluctance in abiding by the terms of the agreement. On the same night, the accused appellant’s mother called the de-facto complainant’s parents. On 26th June, 2021, the accused appellant visited the de-facto complainant and pressurized her to withdraw the complaint and inform the Inspector of Police that all the allegations levelled by her against him were false. This incident was reported by the de-facto complainant to the SHE Team Police. Inspite thereof, the accused appellant did not mend his ways and he along with his mother continued to harass the de-facto complainant and raised new demands about the wedding.
7. Following this, the de-facto complainant expressed her apprehension to the accused appellant that she had doubts about his intent to marry her. She shared the details of the Telangana State Government’s marriage registration procedure with the accused appellant, but he refused to pay any heed to her. The de-facto complainant then told the accused appellant that if he failed to apply for a slot for registration of their marriage as per the Telangana State Government’s marriage registration procedure, she would be left with no option but to infer that the appellant had no inten
