IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:23.01.2026 Between:

Challa Vijay …Petitioner/Accused And State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another.

... Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in Crime No.270 of 2025 on the file of Golconda Police Station, Hyderabad. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 69 of BNS.

2. Heard Sri D. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant on a false promise of marriage.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not committed any such offence to attract the ingredients of Section 69 of BNS and that the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant is consensual in nature. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2024) 11 SCC 398 and Rajnish Singh alias Soni v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2025) 4 SCC 197

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the alliance between the de facto complainant and the petitioner herein was fixed and later on, they entered into physical relationship and thereafter, the petitioner absconded and came into contact with the de facto complainant after a considerable period. Thus, the inception of crime is after the marriage got fixed and hence, only on

the promise of marriage, the de facto complainant has entered into physical relationship with the petitioner herein. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 5 SCC 764

6. Perused the record.

7. A perusal of the record discloses that five years ago, the marriage of the de facto complainant was fixed with the petitioner, the petitioner had physical relationship with her and when she became pregnant, he absconded and she could not know his whereabouts. After one year, the petitioner called her and stated that he was working as a Software Engineer in London and that he would marry her. From then on, he used to send messages on Instagram and Whatsapp to her and they used to contact each other and he stated that he would take her to London. Subsequently, he came down thrice to India, met the de facto complainant and had sexual intercourse with her and on 23.10.2025, he went to her house and informed her that he has already married another lady and that he would marry the de facto complainant also, to which the de facto complainant has agreed. On 29.10.2025 at around 3.30 p.m., the petitioner herein has sent a Whatsapp message to the de facto

complainant stating that he would not marry her and she can complain to anyone and further has abused her in filthy language. The petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 69 of BNS. The same is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:

“69. Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc.:-

Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, and has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.”

8. In the present case, the age of the complainant is 32 years as on the date of lodging the complaint. It is alleged that five years prior to the date of complaint, the alleged offence has