THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA I.A.NOs.2 AND 3 OF 2024 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6890 OF 2024

COMMON ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in S.C.No.688 of 2023 pending on the file of Special Sessions Judge FTC for Atrocities against Women-I, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 376 (2), 417 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C’).

2. The facts of the case are that on 16.03.2023 at 21.00 hours the defacto complainant-2^nd respondent lodged a report stating that petitioner was introduced through her friend on 07.05.2021 and they both fell in love and promised to marry her. Believing his words, petitioner brought the 2^nd respondent to a room on 11.02.2023 at Bapunagar and made false promise that he will marry her and participated in sexual intercourse with her forcibly. It is further stated that the petitioner thereafter rejected her to marry and now he is going to marry another girl. As such, she requested to take necessary against the petitioner. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case for the above offences, investigated and filed charge sheet.

3. Heard Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent-State and Sri Bhanothu Hussain.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after filing charge sheet, petitioner and the 2nd respondent have entered into compromise on 13.01.2024, wherein the 2^nd respondent agreed to withdraw the case, in order to lead her own life. He relied on the judgment in Kapil Gupta Vs State (NCT of Delhi), [(2022) 15 SCC 44], wherein the proceedings were quashed for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C, in view of the compromise between the accused and defacto complainant. He also relied on the judgment in Shambhu Kharwar Vs State of U.P., wherein the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C, was quashed on the ground that consensual relationship does not amounts to rape. In the instant case, a reading of the complaint would show that there is consensual physical relationship between the

2 2022 SCC online SC 1032

parties, as such, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the written complaint given by the 2nd respondent does not amount to rape as the complaint averments itself shows that she participated in sexual intercourse on her own will and after giving complaint the 2^nd respondent wanted to withdraw the case in view of the memorandum of understanding entered into between the parties to lead her own life. Hence, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that as the offence committed by the petitioner is a heinous offence, the same cannot be compounded and prayed to dismiss this criminal petition.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the act done by the petitioner does not amount to rape as there is willingness and the victim is aged about 23 years and it is a consensual relationship. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Major Amrit Yadav vs. State of Telangana, [2023 SCC OnLine TS 601], wherein in paragraph Nos.10, 11 and

12 it was held as follows:

“10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Kharwar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh held as under:

“13. In this backdrop and taking the allegations in the complaint as they stand, it is impossible to find in the FIR or in the charge sheet, the essential ingredients of an offence under IPC. The crucial issue which is to be considered is wheth