THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9780 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.178 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Cyberabad, Gachibowli, registered for the offences under Sections 69, 318(4), 117(1), 351(2) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS, 2023”).

2. Heard the submissions of Smt. Anuraadha Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the allegations under Section 69 BNS does not get attracted in the present case and that it was a consensual relationship. Therefore, it cannot be treated as an offence under Section 69 of the BNS. He further submitted that there is no element of cheating, much less to attract the offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the criminal petition filed by the petitioner herein on an earlier occasion got dismissed vide orders dated 28.03.2025 in Crl.P.No.4287 of 2025. The petitioner has not mentioned any change in circumstances to file a second quash petition. He further submits that the petition lacks merits, and hence prayed to dismiss the same.

5. Perused the record.

6. The Criminal Petition No.4287 of 2025 was dismissed as not pressed, granting liberty to file an appropriate application afresh, the petitioner has mentioned about the said fact in his affidavit. One of the ground raised by the petitioner is that Crl.P.No.1848 of 2025 is filed seeking bail. One of the Single Bench has observed that there is a consensual relationship in between the petitioner and the de- facto complainant and the bail was granted subject to certain conditions. Thus, the petitioner counsel has strongly contended that there is no truth in the allegations and there is no prima-facie case against the petitioner. The investigation is still in progress.

7. The petitioner counsel contends that it was only a business transaction which is disclosed from an undertaking executed by the de-facto complainant. The said copy of the undertaking is filed along with the petition, which discloses that the de-facto complainant has given undertaking that she is a Certified Life Coach and that she wanted to establish her own Meditation Centre and out of good acquaintance with the petitioner herein, she has invested into a venture by name Tapasvi Foundation, invested Rs.25 lakhs into the venture and later on, after a considerable period due to her requirement, she has taken back Rs.10 lakhs for her personal needs and that too without any undue influence or coercion for which the petitioner herein is not accountable for the same. The contention of the counsel is that it was only a business acquaintance between the petitioner herein, and the de-facto complainant, and nothing more than that and there is no such offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner herein against the de-facto complainant. He has not abused the de-facto complainant physically at any point of time.

8. The contents of the complaint do point out that the de-facto complainant is a single mother with two daughters and that the petitioner was her client, he has not revealed his marital status and has developed intimacy with her by proposing that he would marry her. After a considerable period of the said relationship, he revealed that he is a married man with three children, but he was living separately from his wife for 4 years and his divorce was underway. Subsequently, he changed his stand that he will never divorce his wife and has repeatedly threatened and abused her physically. Thus, the allegations point out prima-facie case against the petitioner herein for the offences under Sections 69, 318(4), 117(1), 351(2) of the BNS. Therefore, the petition lacks merits.

8. In