APHC010419572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8888/2025 Between:

Nadipalli Yeswanth Kumar ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Victim and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. INAPURAPU SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2. JESU RATNA KUMAR NELATURI The Court made the following:

ORDER

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in Crime No.40 of 2025 on the file of the Maredumilli Police Station, Alluri Seetharamaraju District registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 69 and 318(4)

of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the 1^st respondent, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Perused the record.

3. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the charge sheet has not yet been filed. The age of the petitioner at the time of lodging of the complaint by Respondent No. 1 was 29 years, and the age of Respondent No.

1 was 26 years.

4. It is alleged by Respondent No. 1 that she and the petitioner became acquainted in the year 2014 and developed a close friendship. From 2018 onwards, they were regularly in contact through mobile phone. Their relationship was not known to their respective families. Though they expressed their intention to marry to their elders, the same was not accepted.

5. Despite the efforts made by Respondent No. 1, her parents arranged her marriage with another person and fixed the wedding date as 23.11.2023. It is stated that her father’s native place is Gummaladoddi Village of Gokavaram Mandal, though they were residing at Maredumilli.

6. The petitioner is alleged to have come to Gummaladoddi Village and proposed marriage to Respondent No. 1. Believing his words, Respondent No. 1 left her house and accompanied the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner kept her for a few days in his relative’s house and later convinced her that he would marry her at his niece’s house in Denduluru Village.

7. Respondent No. 1 further alleges that when no one was present in the house, the petitioner had physical intercourse with her on four or five occasions. According to her version, the petitioner thereafter refused to marry her. It is also stated that negotiations were held in the presence of elders for about ten months. However, they proved futile.

8. As noted above, both the petitioner and Respondent No. 1 are fully grown adults. They were acquainted with each other since 2014 and were in a consensual relationship from 2018 onwards. There was consensual sexual intercourse between the petitioner and Respondent No. 1.

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0787/2025 wherein at para No.9 it is held as under:

“9...In our considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. A consensual relationship turning sour or partners 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 folly³ to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section 376 IPC”.

10. In Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, Spl Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7004 of 2025 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned c