THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:13.03.2026 Between:

Ambati Vishnu Kiran and another …Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 And Md. Firoze Parvin and another.

… Respondents

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC No.88 of 2021 on the file of xvii Additional District Judge cum I-Special Sessions Judge for the trial of cases of Atrocities against Women at L.B. Nagar, for the offences under Sections 376(1) and 420 IPC against the petitioner No.1 and for the offence under Section 509 IPC against the petitioner No.2.

2. Heard Sri Shaik Madar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Katta Sravya, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1-

petitioner No.1 has cheated the de facto complainant-respondent No.2 under the promise of marriage and that he has exploited her sexually b y saying that he would marry her and later on, has denied to marry her, after being in a relation with her for a period of two years and that the petitioner No.2, who is the brother of petitioner No.1, also misbehaved with her. Thus, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint which was registered as Crime No.229 of 2019 and after investigation, police filed charge sheet and the same is numbered as SC No.88 of 2021, for the offences under Sections 376(1), 420 against the petitioner No.1 under Section 506 IPC against the petitioner No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was a consensual relationship between the de facto complainant and the petitioner No.1 and that the petitioner No.1 never induced the de facto complainant for the said relationship and when there is consensual relationship, the ingredients of Section 376 or 420 cannot get attracted and that the de facto complainant is a woman of around 30 years of age and that knowing fully-well about the consequences of such relationship, she lived with the petitioner No.1 on her own consent and that her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim points out that it is a consensual relationship. He further submitted that the de facto complainant made false allegations against the petitioner No.2 also, who is the brother of petitioner No.1, and therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the consent was obtained fraudulently from the de facto complainant. It is only on the inducement of promise of marriage that the de facto complainant has consented for the relationship and that the petitioner No.1 has entertained dishonest intention from the inception of the crime and played with the life of the de facto complainant and that only under the promise of marriage, she has entered into a relationship with the petitioner No.1 and that in the first instance the petitioner No.1 has forced her into the relationship.

Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The contents of the complaint point out that the de facto complainant was aged around 29 years and working as a Software Engineer. The petitioner No.1 is her colleague and they both developed acquaintance and that the petitioner No.1 has proposed love to her, but she refused his proposal. The petitioner No.1 shifted his residence to Kondapur, which is near to the area where the de facto complainant is residing. He asked her to cook food for him also as he has no gas connection and hence, she used to cook food for him and used to go to his room to give the food. When she visited his house to give him food, he has forcibly performed sexual intercourse with her, stating that he would like to marry her. On the said promise of marriage, she has accepted his relationship and the said relationship went on for a period of about two years and he has also promised her that he would undergo Sunti operation for converting into Islam for mar