THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4170 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in CC.No.9100 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 417 and 420 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/Bokka Swetha, a 25-year-old accountant, filed a complaint alleging that her childhood friend, petitioner/Bharath Reddy, with whom she had mutually decided to get married, attempted to force her into physical intimacy two months before their planned wedding. When she refused, he cancelled the marriage and subsequently harassed her, repeatedly contacting her and pressuring her to meet him solely for physical intimacy without any commitment, causing her significant trauma that required hospitalization. On receipt of the said complaint, a case was registered against the petitioner for the offences as alleged.

Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri B.Papa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 – State. None appeared for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the allegations in the FIR do not attract the offenses under Sections 417, 354D, 354, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He contended that the defacto complainant has made false allegations with a fraudulent and dishonest intention to cause injury to the petitioner. The defacto complainant has been allegedly instigated by some persons and has created a story by roping the petitioner as an accused, taking advantage of the situation to avoid her financial liability. He averred that the allegations leveled against the petitioner have no basis in the eye of law. He lamented that in the absence of any ingredients to attract the alleged offenses, the registration of the FIR against the petitioner is contrary to law. He pointed out that the complaint fails to show the mens rea or motive on the part of the petitioner, and there are no specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the alleged offenses. Therefore, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, and submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and basing on the averments of the complaint, he was implicated in the case. Therefore, while advocating that the matter requires trial, he prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the date of complaint is 24.05.2024, and the allegations leveled against the petitioner are the offences punishable under Sections 254, 354-D, 417 and 420 of IPC. It is the contention of petitioner that he gave money to de facto complainant and to avoid repayment of the same, she began to threaten him and filed false case. According to complainant, their marriage was decided six months before filing of complainant and during the course, the petitioner attempted to be physical with her for which she did not agree and in that rage, the petitioner cancelled marriage and later tried to contact her as well.

7. Perusing the record would reveal that the marriage of petitioner and complainant was fixed but the same was not materialized due to behavior of petitioner. However, it is noticed that neither the dates of incidents, nor the dates as to when the petitioner attempted to contact the complainant were shown in the investigation process. Except alleging that the petitioner has outraged the modesty of complainant, neither in the complaint, nor in the investigation done, there are any averments to prove the allegations leveled against the