1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS”), seeking quashment of the proceedings in S.C. No.544 of 2024 on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

2. The petitioner is accused for the offence under Sections 376(2), 417, 420, 506 of IPC.

3. Heard Ms. C. Radha Sri, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State. Despite due service of notice, Respondent No. 2 (the de facto complainant) chose to remain silent.

4.1. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that, the Respondent No. 2, the de facto complainant, joined Mindware Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru, in the year 2019 as a Director. In connection with securing rental accommodation, she approached Nestaway, which in turn assigned the petitioner/accused as its agent to assist her in the process.

               4.2. During the course of their professional interactions, the parties developed a close personal relationship. The petitioner subsequently expressed his intention to marry the respondent and professed his love for her, notwithstanding that she had informed him that she was approximately three years older. On 28.10.2019, on the occasion of Deepavali, the respondent invited the petitioner to her residence. It is alleged that during this visit, in the absence of her sister, the petitioner attempted to engage in sexual intercourse, which the respondent resisted due to her menstrual condition.

               4.3. It is further alleged that within a few days thereafter, the petitioner again visited her residence and engaged in sexual intercourse despite her resistance and discomfort. Subsequently, the parties continued to engage in physical relations intermittently, with the petitioner allegedly assuring her of marriage. The petitioner later moved into the respondent’s flat and cohabited with her for approximately ten months, during which period the respondent bore his living expenses. The physical relationship between the parties continued throughout this duration.

               4.4. The respondent further alleges that the petitioner subsequently abandoned her, misappropriated her mobile phone, subjected her to mental harassment by casting aspersions on her character, and threatened to circulate private recordings. It is also alleged that the petitioner’s parents, despite being aware of the relationship, condoned and supported his conduct. Consequently, she lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner had induced her into a sexual relationship on the false promise of marriage, leading to the registration of Crime No. 990 of 2022 and the filing of a charge sheet upon completion of investigation.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the last alleged incident occurred on 19.10.2021, whereas the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged only on 19.10.2022, reflecting an unexplained delay of over one year. Such delay, it is argued, casts serious doubt on the veracity and credibility of the allegations. It is further submitted that the relationship between the parties was consensual, prolonged, and voluntary in nature. The respondent, being a major, well-educated individual and older than the petitioner, was fully conscious of the nature and consequences of her actions. It is a settled proposition of law that a consensual relationship between adults does not constitute rape merely because it does not culminate in marriage, unless it is established that the promise to marry was false from the very inception and made with no intention of being fulfilled.

               5.2. It is further contended that the alleged incidents occurred in Bengaluru, whereas the FIR was registered in Hyderabad, thereby raising substantial issues relating to territorial jurisdiction under Sections 177 to 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Additionally, it is argued that the respondent had previously lodged complaints of a similar nature against other individuals, thereby suggesting mala fide intent. It is also submitted that there exist material inconsistencies in the timeline and statements, which significantly undermine the prosecution’s case.

               5.3. Reliance has been placed on authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in A. Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46; B. Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, 2013 (7) SCC 675; C. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (9) SCC 608; To plead that these decisions consistently hold that a breach of promise to marry does not ipso facto constitute rape unless the promise was false from the inception and was made with fraudulent intent.

6. I have carefully perused the material on record and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel.

7. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the prosecution case primarily rests upon the statement of the victim, supplemented by hearsay testimony of her family members. The statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are broadly consistent. However, it emerges that the initial physical relationship between the parties was not preceded by any explicit promise of marriage. Rather, the relationship evolved into a prolonged and intimate association, including cohabitation. The parties admittedly engaged in consensual sexual relations over a substantial period of nearly two years.

8.1. The pivotal issue for consideration is whether such consent was vitiated by “misconception of fact” within the meaning of Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, so as to attract the offence under Section 376 IPC.

               8.2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samadhan S/o Sitaram Manmothe v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1137, reiterated that a consensual relationship between adults, in the absence of evidence of deception at the inception, would not attract the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC. It was emphasized that a false promise must be shown to have been made in bad faith from the very beginning.

9. Further, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the governing principles for quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., particularly in cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence.

10. The distinction between a mere breach of promise and a false promise was also elucidated in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana,(supra) wherein it was held that consent arising out of love, passion, or mutual intimacy cannot be construed as consent obtained under a “misconception of fact” unless it is established that the promise to marry was deceitful from the inception.

11. Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the material on record, it is evident that the relationship between the parties was voluntary and consensual. There is no material to indicate that the petitioner, from the very inception, had no intention of marrying the respondent and had induced her into the relationship solely on a false promise of marriage.

12. The unexplained delay of over one year in lodging the FIR further weakens the prosecution case. Moreover, the allegations relating to threats of circulation of private recordings are not supported by any forensic or electronic evidence. The investigation also appears to suffer from procedural infirmities, particularly with respect to territorial jurisdiction.

13. In view of the foregoing analysis, it is held that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC. The case squarely falls within the parameters laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) for quashing of criminal proceedings. Continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in S.C. No. 544 of 2024 pending before the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.