Criminal proceedings for sexual offences should not be quashed at the threshold based on delay in reporting or lack of exhaustive detail in the FIR, provided a cognizable offence is prima facie disclosed, as these factors are subject to investigation.

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.195 of 2026 of Yacharam Police Station, Future City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections, 64(2)(m), 78(1), 75(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’).

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. On 08.07.2026, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner had been casually speaking with her for the past six months and that he was related to her as her nephew and she had also spoken with him occasionally. However, for the past one month, the petitioner had been constantly following her wherever she went. The petitioner had obtained her mobile phone number, started calling her, and demanded that she speak with him. When she refused, the petitioner threatened to kill her, her husband and her children. About 10 days prior to the complaint, the petitioner came near her agricultural field and demanded that she accompany him immediately stating, ‘you must come with me right now, you are mine’ and attempted to forcibly take her by holding her hands and compelled her to engage physical intimacy with him. In the meantime, her husband came to the spot, upon seeing him, the petitioner fled. When she informed her husband about the incident, he confronted the petitioner in the presence of village elders. The petitioner agreed not to approach anymore. Whenever, the petitioner subsequently saw her, he continued to make gestures towards her and ask whether she had eaten. Again on 07.07.2026 at about 12.30 p.m., the petitioner allegedly handed over a mobile phone to a woman from the village, namely, Swapna, and asked her to give it to her. Swapna thereafter came to her house and handed over the mobile phone to her, which she in turn gave to her husband. The petitioner was insisting that she have an intimate relationship with the petitioner and, upon her refusal, was threatening to kill her and her family members. It is also stated that in the past, other persons had lodged a police case against the petitioner and that she apprehended a threat to her life at his hands. Based on the said complaint, the present crime was registered for the above mentioned offences.

3. When this matter came up for consideration on 11.08.2026, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that pursuant to the order dated 31.07.2026, the Investigating officer served the notice on respondent No.2 on 06.08.2026 and informed about filing of the present criminal petition and listing of the matter. He also placed on record a copy of the said intimation. In spite of receiving the notice, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter.

4. Heard Mr. Sudarshan Malugari, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.

5. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

5.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submitted that in the complaint, dated 08.07.2026, respondent No.2 did not make any allegation regarding the alleged commission of the offence under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS. However, respondent No.2 made allegations in her statement which was recorded on 09.07.2026 by the Investigating Officer after thought in respect of alleged offence under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS. The allegations levelled in the complaint as well as the statement of respondent No.2 are contradictory.

5.2. He further submitted that even according to the allegations levelled in the complaint or in the statement of respondent No.2, there are no specific allegations or details regarding four incidents of rape allegedly committed by the petitioner so as to satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS. The crime was initially registere