THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10001 OF 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter ‘the BNSS’) seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No. 54 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge -cum-

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

2. The petitioner is sole accused in the aforesaid Sessions Case facing accusations for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Heard Mr. A.Sanjeeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1-State.

4. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that on 13.08.2022, respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner/accused induced her into a relationship on the pretext of love and, under a false promise of marriage, sexually exploited her at her residence. Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly moved her to Hyderabad, where they resided in a rented accommodation. It is further alleged that the petitioner compelled her to sell her house for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, which he appropriated for his own use. Subsequently, when the complainant became pregnant and insisted upon marriage, the petitioner refused, stating that he was no longer interested in continuing the relationship, thereby abandoning her.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the petitioner and respondent No.2 are major individuals, who engaged in a consensual relationship, without any element of coercion or inducement. It was further argued that the allegations regarding misappropriation of money were fabricated, and that neither the complaint nor the complainant’s statement disclose the essential ingredients constituting the alleged offences. Accordingly, the counsel prayed that the proceedings be quashed.

6. Conversely, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the complainant’s statement clearly indicates that the petitioner, from the very inception, had engaged in a sexual relationship with her under a false promise of marriage. It was further pointed out that in the discharge petition filed before the trial Court, the petitioner contested these issues, but upon detailed consideration of the available materials, the trial Court rightly opined that a prima facie case exists against the petitioner. On that basis, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the criminal petition.

7. I have perused the materials on record.

8. As per the version of respondent No.2/de facto complainant, the petitioner/accused professed love towards her and, under a promise of marriage, shifted her to Hyderabad, where he established a physical relationship with her. The petitioner’s own statement, asserting that the relationship was consensual, prima facie amounts to an admission of physical intimacy. However, whether such consent was obtained on the basis of a false promise of marriage, amounting to inducement or deception, and whether it thereby constitutes sexual exploitation within the meaning of law, are issues that cannot be conclusively determined at this preliminary stage. Such questions are matters of evidence, which necessarily require examination and cross-examination of witnesses during trial.

9. It is well settled that consent obtained under a misconception of fact, including a false promise of marriage, falls within the ambit of Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’), thereby vitiating the voluntariness of such consent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46, and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, has held that where it is established that the promise of marriage was false from inception and made with no intention of being fulfilled, the act would amount to rape under Section 375 IPC. In contrast,