THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.1896 of 2025

ORDER:

The present criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.31 of 2025, on the file of Police Station, Bhadrachalam Town, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, registered for the offences under Section 69 of BNS.

2. The petitioner herein is the accused and respondent No.2 herein is the complainant before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience hereinafter parties are referred to as accused and the complainant.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a complaint against the accused stating that she was separated with her husband over family disputes and living at YSR colony, Bhadrachalam along with her son and to proceed legally against her husband, the complainant approached the accused, who is an advocate believed her to take-up case and to do justice and took advantage as she is separated from her husband and living alone, saying deceitful words to her by making false promises to marry, took her to his house at Medical colony, Bhadrachalam in the temporary absence of his parents and sexually participated with her several times with her consent and coexistence with her. When the complainant got pregnant and asked the accused about marriage, the accused refused to marry her and threatened her to got aborted the pregnancy, if not, he will post all her pictures in social media. Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint against the accused.

4. On receipt of the said complaint, the Inspector of Police, Bhadrachalam Town, Bhadradri Kothagudem, registered a case in Crime No.31 of 2025, under Sections 69 of BNS.

5. Heard Sri V.Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri S.M.Rizwan Akhtar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and perused the record.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that respondent No.2 is a married woman, got married in the year 2012, thereafter, disputes arose between her and her husband, she left the conjugal society of her husband and started living separately with her son. Respondent No.2 voluntarily engaged in the sexual intercourse with the petitioner. Except stating that she became pregnant in the year 2023 and subsequently in the year 2024, no details were furnished in the said complaint. The facts of the case do not attract the provision under Section 69 of BNS.

7. To support his case, learned counsel relied on the catena of judgments, which reads as under:

7.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of XXXX vs.

State of Maharashtra, (2024) 3 SCC 496 observed the following, while quashing the FIR registered under Section 376(n) and 506 of IPC, under similar facts and circumstances. The relevant portion reads as under:

12. In any case, even on the dates when the complainant alleges that the parties had physical relations, she was already married. She falsely claimed that divorce from her earlier marriage took place...... It is not a case where the complainant was of an immature age who could not foresee her welfare and take right decision. She was a grown up lady about ten year elder to the appellant. She was matured and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of the moral and immoral acts for which she consented during subsistence of her earlier marriage. In fact, it was a case of betraying her husband.

7.2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of XXX vs.

State of Maharashtra, (2024) SCC OLine Bom 3645 496 held as under:

22. Applying the said proposition of law to the present case, the Respondent No. 2 herself has stated in her complaint that while her marriage was in subsistence, she has indulged in physical relationship with the Petitioner and she on her own has left him on ground of infidelity. Hence, the case of the Petitioner is

fully covered