THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.206 of 2021

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the proceedings in SPL SC. No.24 of 2020, pending on the file of the VI Metropolitan Sessions Judge court –cum- Special Court for SC/ST Cases at Secunderabad against the petitioner-accused.

2. Heard Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mothkuri Sinjith Goud, learned Amicus Curie for respondent No.2 and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 – State and perused the record.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that on 26.08.2019 at 21.35 hours, the de-facto complainant-Smt.C.Kanthi Sireesha lodged a written complaint stating that she met R.Obulesu @ Abhi-accused while studying school, presently he is working as Electrician in ESI hospital. He married her on 24.03.2006 secretly at the age of 19 years and maintaining physical relation at their home saying that she is his wife. She came to Hyderabad for her studies in the year 2010 and stayed in a hostel at Ameerpet. He came to Hyderabad in the year 2013 and stayed in a hostel near to her hostel and used to met her every day and promised her that he will marry her officially in the presence of elders. He introduced her as his girlfriend to his friends, neighbourhood and colleagues. He took room at H.No.7-1-302/41/A, Dasarm Basthi, SR Nagar and he used to call her to his room for physical relationship and one of his friends by name Rahul misguided him about their relationship. Since 2018 he denied to marry her. She has photos, videos, mails, chatting and recordings of their relationship. In July, 2018 she called his father and told about their marriage and physical relationship, then he promise that he will look into the issue. The accused left her company on 26.08.2018 and married another girl. He abused her in filthy language and beat her. The de-facto complainant requested him to marry her, but all his family members denied for that. In the year 2015 they quarreled about their marriage and compromised, but the accused cheated her. During course of investigation, LW.21-Sub Inspector of Police, SR Nagar examined the de-facto complainant and LWs.1 to 20, accordingly charge sheet has been laid.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial is not yet commenced. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v The State of Maharashtra¹ in Crl.A No.1165 of 2019 would submit that the promise of marriage and indulging thereby sexual activity does not fall within the ambit of Section 375 of IPC and so far as sections imposed against the petitioner under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act are concerned they are not attracted to the facts of the case. In the present case, is no abuse has been posed in the name of caste as per the averments made in the complaint lodged against the petitioner and none of the ingredients are attracted against the petitioner to try him under the said Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Varma v State of Uttarakhand and another and submit that none of the ingredients attract to the facts of the case to try the petitioner under Section 417 of IPC and the question of Section 493 of IPC does not arise as the complainant herself has admitted the fact in the compliant that after complaint, he has deserted her in the year 2018.

5. Service of notice has been caused upon the de-facto complainant. Despite receipt of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of de-facto complainant-respondent No.2. This Court has

1 AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 4010

2 SCC 2020 Online 111

appointed Mr.Mothkuri Sinjith Goud as Amicus Curie to assist this Court on behalf of respondent No.2.

6. Learned Amicus Curie would submit that the petitioner approached this Court with un-cleaned hands, where the serious allegations have