THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.179 of 2025 on the file of Moghalpura Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 69, 318(2) of BNS.

2. Heard Sri Kaluvala Venkata Vara Prasad learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner had physical relationship with the respondent No.2 under the promise of marriage but, he got married to another woman and further has told her that he would divorce his wife and marry her. On realizing that the petitioner has cheated her, the present complaint is lodged by the respondent No.2, based on which the police have registered Crime No.179 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 69, 318(2) of BNS.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.2 is a Post Graduate and has knowingly entered into the relationship with the petitioner herein and now that he has married another lady, she has filed the present petition with all false allegations. After having a consensual relationship for so long, she cannot allege that the petitioner had a physical relationship with her based on a false promise of marriage. It is only out of vengeance, the present complaint is lodged. He further submitted that the respondent No.2 used to reside as a tenant in the petitioner’s house and thus, she is pretty well aware about the marriage arrangements of the petitioner. But, she had kept quite till three months after the marriage of the petitioner and has come up with the present complaint, which is totally false and that till lodging of this complaint she has never complained to anyone about the said allegations and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-de facto complainant has submitted that the petitioner has forced the respondent No.2 into physical relationship with him and that she was put under fear that he would not marry her if she discloses the fact to any other person. Putting her under that fear, he had physical relationship with her. He further submitted that since the petitioner and the respondent No.2 are residing in the same building, the petitioner had easy access to the respondent No.2 and used to exploit her situation in the absence of the elders. He further submitted that the petitioner has no grounds under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The contents of the complaint itself discloses that there has been physical relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No.2-de facto complainant since 2003. The respondent No.2 is aged 28 years as on the date of the complaint i.e. 22.08.2025. Thus, she must have been aged 26 years in 2023. Therefore, she is a matured lady, who is also into employment. It is made out from her counter that she is working as a private employee. It is further borne out from the record that the respondent No.2 has not revealed about the alleged relationship with the petitioner, to anyone till his marriage which was performed on 09.05.2025. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is that since the respondent No.2 is a tenant in the house of the petitioner, he had easy access to her. It is an admitted fact that both of them resided in the same building. Thus, she was well aware about the arrangements made for the marriage of the petitioner and till three months after the performance of the marriage, she kept quite without lodging any complaint. If at all she was forced into the physical relationship, at one time or other she could have revealed the same at least to her mother or any of the family members, which she has not done. It is only after the marriage of the petitione