THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.236 of 2025

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.1460 of 2024 on the file of Medipally Police Station, Rachakonda District, registered for the offences under Sections 64(1), 318(2) and 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. Heard Mr. Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State and Mr. K. Narayan Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the respondent No.2-de facto complainant had a consensual relationship and that the Apex Court has reiterated many a times that in cases of consensual relationship the allegation of rape cannot be attributed. He further submitted that the respondent No.2 herein is a matured lady, who entered into a consensual relationship and has subsequently, lodged this complaint on false allegations. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed counter opposing the petition. She submitted that the respondent No.2 has resisted entering into the relationship, but the petitioner has convinced that he would marry her and then developed physical acquaintance with her and therefore, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The record discloses that the petitioner developed acquaintance through Instagram with the de facto complainant and that their friendship advanced and he made a promise that he would marry her and won her confidence and subsequently, when nobody was there at her home, he went there and took her to Suprabhat Township and has forcibly entered into physical relationship with her. Subsequently, he stopped talking to her and when she questioned him, he has threatened her. Thus, the allegations do point out that on promise of marriage, the physical relationship was developed.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that to attract the offence under Section 64, the absence of consent must be there. But, in the present case, it was consensual relationship and hence, the same does not attract.

8. For the sake of convenience, Sections 64 and 69 of BNS are extracted hereunder:

“64. Punishment for Rape (1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

(2) Whoever,—

(a) being a police officer, commits rape,—

(i) within the limits of the police station to which such police officer is appointed; or (ii) in the premises of any station house; or (iii) on a woman in such police officer's custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to such police officer; or (b) being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant's custody or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant; or (c) being a member of the armed forces deployed in an area by the Central Government or a State Government commits rape in such area; or (d) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a women's or children's institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or (e) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or (f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; or (g) commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or (h) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or (i) commits rape on a woman incapable of giving conse