1. This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. No.549 of 2026 of Rajendranagar Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 376(3) and 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the POCSO Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case:

               2.1. On 06.05.2026, respondent No.2/de-facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Rajendranagar Police Station stating that while she was studying in the 10th class at Gowtham Model School, Suncity, Hyderabad, in the year 2016, the petitioner used to express his love towards her. However, she was not interested in him. After completing her 10th class, she joined Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Begumpet, for her Intermediate studies. During that period, the petitioner continued to send her messages and even came to her school. On 14.11.2017, the petitioner asked her to bunk school. Though she initially refused, she later agreed and accompanied him. The petitioner took her to Jubilee Hills Pavilion, where they spoke for some time. Thereafter, he took her to a room near Golden Palace, Upperpally, where he forcibly had physical relations with her, while the other accused were waiting outside the room. The said act was against her will. She did not inform her parents about the incident at that time and remained in depression for several years thereafter. After the incident, the petitioner and another accused continued to blackmail her and threatening to upload her personal photographs on social media. Based on the said complaint, F.I.R.No. 549 of 2026 was registered for the aforementioned offences.

3. Heard Mr. K. B. Narsimhulu, learned counsel representing Mr. G. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. With their consent, the criminal petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that pursuant to the order dated 20.07.2026, the Investigating Officer served notice on respondent No.2 on 20.07.2026 about filing of the present criminal petition and listing of the matter. A copy of the said notice has been placed before this Court. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance.

5. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

               5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 376(3) and 363 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act are not attracted. Even according to the allegations levelled in the complaint, the alleged incident occurred on 14.11.2017, whereas the complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 on 06.05.2026, after lapse of more than nine years and she has not given any reason for the said delay. The allegations levelled in the complaint and the statements of respondent No.2 and her mother given to the Investigating Officer are inconsistent.

               5.2. He further submitted that offence under Section 376(3) of the IPC is not attracted, as the said provision came into force by virtue of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018. The alleged incident is stated to have occurred prior to the said amendment i.e., on 14.11.2024. The prosecution has lodged the present crime solely on the basis of the statement of respondent No.2, in the absence of any iota of material.

               5.3. He also submitted that the medical examination of respondent No.2 and the potency test of the petitioner were conducted on 07.05.2026, nearly nine years after the alleged occurrence, are exercises of no evidentiary value and cannot supply corroboration to a stale and belated accusation. It is further submitted that due to the said abnormal delay in lodging the complaint, no physical, scientific, forensic or circumstantial evidence could be collected from the alleged scene of occurrence.

               5.4. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 and the petitioner were classmates at Gowtham Model School, Suncity, Hyderabad, where the mother of respondent No.2 was employed as a teacher, while the parents of the petitioner were the Correspondent and Director of the very same school. The family of respondent No.2 had approached the petitioner’s family expressing a desire to solemnize the marriage of respondent No.2 with the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not reciprocate such interest or consent to the proposed alliance, owing to which serious animosity developed between the two families. On the account of the said animosity, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint by making false allegations. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

6. Submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1:

               6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific and serious allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint, which prima facie attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 376(3) and 363 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. He further submitted that the mother of respondent No.2, in her statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, specifically explained the reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint and according to her, respondent No.2 had not disclosed to her and her huband that the petitioner had committed rape upon her without her consent, subjected her to physical and mental harassment, and threatening to upload her personal photographs on social media and blackmailed her. Owing to the said pressure and trauma, respondent No.2 was undergoing treatment. It was only on 06.05.2026 that respondent No.2 disclosed to her mother all the acts allegedly committed by the petitioner, whereupon the complaint was lodged immediately.

               6.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has also stated in her statement the reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint. The delay in reporting a heinous offence, such as, rape or sexual assault, is not a ground seeking quashing of the proceedings. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 10 and the investigation is still in progress. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage.

Analysis

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2, in her complaint, has made specific allegations against the petitioner. It is specifically alleged that on 14.11.2017, the petitioner took respondent No.2 to Jubilee Hills Pavilion and, thereafter, to a room near Golden Palace, Upperpally, where he forcibly had physical relations with her without her consent, while the petitioner’s friends, namely Mahesh Yadav and Preetam, were allegedly waiting outside the room. After the said incident, the petitioner and his friends continued to blackmail respondent No.2 by threatening to upload her personal photographs on social media.

8. The record further discloses that respondent No.2 and her parents, in their statements recorded during the course of investigation, have specifically stated about the role of the petitioner. They have also explained the reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint by stating that respondent No.2 had not disclosed the alleged incident to her parents earlier and informed them about it only on 06.05.2026, whereupon the complaint was lodged immediately. The record reveals that the Investigating Officer has not only recorded the statements of respondent No.2 and her parents, but has also recorded the statements of LWs.4 to 9 during the course of investigation. The allegations levelled in the complaint prima facie disclose cognizable offences.

9. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 lodged the complaint after a lapse of more than nine years is concerned, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are pertaining to a heinous crime, especially there are specific incidents regarding the commission of the offence from 14.11.2017 and the petitioner and his friends blackmailed her by threatening to upload her personal photographs in social media, due to the said harassment, she went trauma and depression and she had informed to her parents on 06.05.2026 and immediately lodged the complaint and delay in filing of the complaint is not a ground to seek quashing of the present crime, as it is pertaining to a heinous offence. Whether the allegations made in the complaint are true or not, the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is under progress. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the delay in lodging the complaint cannot be said to be either unnatural or fatal to the prosecution case, at this stage.

10. In Chanchalpati Das supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings as the complaint regarding theft of a bus was filed after an unexplained delay of about eight years and contained only bald allegations without supporting material. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, and therefore exercised its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the case.

11. It is relevant to mention that in Shreekant Sharma v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1961), the High Court of Calcutta held that the delay in reporting sexual offences cannot by itself be a ground to quash the proceedings, placing reliance on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana ((2010) 8 SCC 714), and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh (AIR 2009 SC 1010), wherein it was held that delay in lodging F.I.R. in sexual offences is not uncommon due to trauma, stigma and social pressures faced by the victim and her family. The Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tulsidas Kanolkar v. State of Goa ((2003) 8 SCC 590), wherein it was held that the delay in reporting rape or sexual assault cannot be used as a ritualistic formula to discard the prosecution case and the explanation for such delay must be considered in the surrounding circumstances. Applying the principles governing exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the allegations in the F.I.R. disclosed prima facie commission of cognizable offences and did not fall within any of the categories warranting quashing of criminal proceedings. Consequently, the criminal revision petitions were dismissed.

12. It is also relevant to mention that in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra ((2021) 19 SCC 401), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection, that the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences, and that ordinarily courts should not interfere at the stage of investigation unless the F.I.R., on a plain reading, fails to disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. It was further observed that the Court cannot conduct a meticulous examination of the truthfulness of the allegations at the threshold and criminal proceedings should not be scuttled at the nascent stage.

13. It is also relevant to mention that i Sau. Kamala Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ((2019) 14 SCC 350), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised in exceptional cases sparingly, with caution, only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice; and it cannot be invoked to weigh evidence or stifle a genuine prosecution, but may be applied where the allegations in the complaint, taken at face value, do not disclose the basic ingredients of any offence.

14. It is already stated supra that there are specific allegations in the complaint against the petitioner that on 14.11.2017, he took respondent No.2 to Jubilee Hills Pavilion and thereafter to a room near Golden Palace, Upperpally, where he forcibly had physical relations with her against her will. After the said incident, the petitioner and other accused continued to blackmail respondent No.2 by threatening to upload her personal photographs on social media. The allegations levelled in the complaint prima facie disclose a cognizable offence and require investigation. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the case on hand does not fall under the ambit of the rarest of rare case to exercise the powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.549 of 2026 at this stage, especially the investigation is under progress.

15. For the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. No.549 of 2026 of Rajendranagar Police Station, Hyderabad.

16. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.