IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:22.01.2026 Between:

Ganji Rahul …Petitioner/Accused No.1 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 No.1 in FIR No.1051 of 2025 on the file of Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Rachakonda, registered for the offences under Sections 69, 115(2), 352 read with 3(5) of BNS and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. (for short ‘DP Act’).

2. Heard Sri B.V. Ramana Naidu, learned counsel representing Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the de facto complainant were in consensual relationship and therefore, the allegations under Section 69 of BNS do not get attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that the respondent No.2 has filed vacate stay petition with contradictory submissions and that there are no merits in the complaint and the allegations in the complaint does not attract the alleged offences. He further submitted that the accused No.2 in this case is the mother of the petitioner and that she was granted the relief under Section 35(3) of BNSS and hence, prayed to extend the same relief to the petitioner herein.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the de facto complainant has agreed to the consensual relationship with the petitioner herein only on a promise of marriage and that the petitioner, after abusing her sexually, has refused to marry her, therefore, the ingredients of Section 69 of BNS attracts against the petitioner herein and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The record discloses that the de facto complainant and the petitioner became friends on Instagram and their friendship has grown gradually, which turned into love and on 13.12.2023, the petitioner herein proposed to respondent No.2 and she agreed for the same. Subsequently, in February, 2024, the petitioner visited the parental house of the de facto complainant and she introduced him to her parents as a friend and after that in June 2024, their parents also accepted the love affair and in August 2024, the family members of the petitioner also agreed for the marriage and in January 2025, both the families discussed about the alliance and the aspect of dowry. It was agreed that the family of de facto complainant could give 15 tulas of gold and household articles. In February 2025, when the de facto complainant and the petitioner were going from Kothapet to Nagole, the petitioner took her to Oyo room and asked her to enter into physical relationship as they are about to get married and so she too agreed. Further, on another occasion again they had a physical relationship at L.B. Nagar. 7. It is further alleged that at the end of February 2025, when the mother of the de facto complainant stated to the family members of the petitioner that for about 10 months they would not be giving the salary of the de facto complainant to them, the family members of the petitioner disagreed for the same. Then, disputes arose between both the families. Subsequently, the de facto complainant went to the house of the petitioner to question them, on which the mother of the petitioner called their relatives, abused the de facto complainant and beat her, following which a quarrel arose between them. Both the families went to the police station and had a counselling session. Thereafter, the de facto complainant has consumed some tables on 14.10.2025, following which she was admitted in Yashoda Hospital. It is made out that due to the disputes between the families, the proposed marriage got cancelled.

8. The contention of the l