1. This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.195 of 2026 of Yacharam Police Station, Future City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections, 64(2)(m), 78(1), 75(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’).

2. Brief facts of the case:

               2.1. On 08.07.2026, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner had been casually speaking with her for the past six months and that he was related to her as her nephew and she had also spoken with him occasionally. However, for the past one month, the petitioner had been constantly following her wherever she went. The petitioner had obtained her mobile phone number, started calling her, and demanded that she speak with him. When she refused, the petitioner threatened to kill her, her husband and her children. About 10 days prior to the complaint, the petitioner came near her agricultural field and demanded that she accompany him immediately stating, ‘you must come with me right now, you are mine’ and attempted to forcibly take her by holding her hands and compelled her to engage physical intimacy with him. In the meantime, her husband came to the spot, upon seeing him, the petitioner fled. When she informed her husband about the incident, he confronted the petitioner in the presence of village elders. The petitioner agreed not to approach anymore. Whenever, the petitioner subsequently saw her, he continued to make gestures towards her and ask whether she had eaten. Again on 07.07.2026 at about 12.30 p.m., the petitioner allegedly handed over a mobile phone to a woman from the village, namely, Swapna, and asked her to give it to her. Swapna thereafter came to her house and handed over the mobile phone to her, which she in turn gave to her husband. The petitioner was insisting that she have an intimate relationship with the petitioner and, upon her refusal, was threatening to kill her and her family members. It is also stated that in the past, other persons had lodged a police case against the petitioner and that she apprehended a threat to her life at his hands. Based on the said complaint, the present crime was registered for the above mentioned offences.

3. When this matter came up for consideration on 11.08.2026, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that pursuant to the order dated 31.07.2026, the Investigating officer served the notice on respondent No.2 on 06.08.2026 and informed about filing of the present criminal petition and listing of the matter. He also placed on record a copy of the said intimation. In spite of receiving the notice, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter.

4. Heard Mr. Sudarshan Malugari, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.

5. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

               5.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submitted that in the complaint, dated 08.07.2026, respondent No.2 did not make any allegation regarding the alleged commission of the offence under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS. However, respondent No.2 made allegations in her statement which was recorded on 09.07.2026 by the Investigating Officer after thought in respect of alleged offence under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS. The allegations levelled in the complaint as well as the statement of respondent No.2 are contradictory.

               5.2. He further submitted that even according to the allegations levelled in the complaint or in the statement of respondent No.2, there are no specific allegations or details regarding four incidents of rape allegedly committed by the petitioner so as to satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS. The crime was initially registered for the offences under Sections 78(1), 75(2) and 351(3) of the BNS and that Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS was subsequently added basing upon the statement of respondent No.2 recorded on 09.07.2026, especially the ingredients of Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS are not attracted. Respondent No.2 has not mentioned the dates, places or times at which the alleged offences were committed by the petitioner.

               5.3. He also submitted that there was an unexplained and inordinate delay of about 10 to 15 days in lodging the complaint. The explanation offered in the complaint is promise to fear with her husband is absolute false, concocted and invented without even single proof of evidence. There are no messages, audio or video, SMSs or any other proof, except the oral allegation made by respondent No.2. He further submitted that the allegation levelled in the complaint about harassing respondent No.2 by the petitioner for the past six months is also created one, without any proof and evidence.

               5.4. He further submitted that civil disputes are pending between the petitioner and respondent No.2 in respect of agricultural land covered by Sy.No.169. Respondent No.2, with an intention to harass the petitioner in one way or the other and to settle the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and the family of respondent No.2, she lodged the complaint with false allegations and also given false statement on 09.07.2026 against the petitioner. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

6. Submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:

               6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint that the petitioner had been continuously following respondent No.2 wherever she went, obtained her mobile phone number and started calling her, and threatened to kill her if she refused to comply with his demands and there is an allegation that the petitioner committed rape. He further submitted that respondent No.2 specifically stated in her complaint the reasons for the delay in the lodging the complaint.

               6.2. He also submitted that respondent No.2 specifically stated in the complaint that the petitioner sent a mobile phone to her through her neighbor, namely Swapna. In spite of repeated cautions given by respondent No.2 and her husband, the petitioner continued to harass respondent No.2 and insist upon having a sexual relationship with her.

               6.3. He further submitted that Respondent No. 2 had specifically stated in her statement, dated 09.07.2026, that on four occasions, the petitioner had forcibly committed rape upon her against her will. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the said allegations prima facie attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS. The petitioner had approached XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, for grant of anticipatory bail and the said application was dismissed on 29.07.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached this Court and filed anticipatory bail petition i.e. Crl.P.No.12335 of 2026 and the same is pending. He further submitted that the delay in lodging the complaint in a heinous offence, like under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS, cannot be a ground for quashing of the criminal proceedings at the threshold, especially the investigation is under progress.

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 lodged a complaint on 08.07.2026. Basing on the said complaint, Crime No.195 of 2026 was registered for the offences under Sections 78(1), 75(2) and 351(3) of the BNS and subsequently, added the offence under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS after following the due procedure. The record further reveals that respondent No.2, in her complaint, specifically mentioned that the petitioner had been casually speaking with her for the past six months, as he was related to her as her nephew and that she had also spoken with him occasionally. However, during the past month, the petitioner had been continuously following her wherever she went and obtained her mobile phone number, started calling her and demanded that she speak with him. When she refused, he threatened to kill her, her husband and her children. About 10 days prior to lodging the complaint, the petitioner came near her agricultural field and demanded that she accompany him immediately, stating, ‘you must come with me right now, you are mine’. The petitioner attempted to forcibly take her by holding her hands and compelled her to engage in physical intimacy with him. In the meantime, her husband arrived at the spot, and upon seeing him, the petitioner fled. When respondent No.2 informed her husband about the said incident, he confronted the petitioner in the presence of the village elders. Thereafter, the petitioner agreed not to approach her again. The complaint further contains that on 07.07.2026, the petitioner gave a mobile phone to a woman from the village, namely, Swapna, and asked her to deliver it to respondent No.2. Swapna came to her house and handed over the mobile phone to her, which she, in turn, gave to her husband. It is alleged that the petitioner was insisting that respondent No.2 have an intimate relationship with him and, upon her refusal, threatening to kill her and her family members.

8. The record reveals that in the statement of respondent No.2, she specifically stated that on four occasions taking advantage of her being alone in her agricultural field, the petitioner forcibly committed rape upon her. She also stated that the petitioner threatened to destroy her family if she did not have a sexual relationship with him. The allegations levelled in the complaint, prima facie disclose the cognizable offences.

9. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 had not made any allegation in the complaint about committing rape against her will on four occasions, however, she subsequently developed her case by giving a statement on 09.07.2026, and that even in the said statement, she had not specified the date or time on which the alleged offences took place and had made only omnibus allegations, besides there being an unexplained delay in the lodging the complaint on 08.07.2026 without assigning any reasons, especially in the absence of any material is concerned, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are pertaining to a heinous offence, specifically the allegations regarding commission of an offence of rape. The delay in lodging the complaint cannot be a ground for quashing the crime, particularly the investigation is under progress and the truth or otherwise of the allegations have to be ascertained. The absence of specific dates and times, as well as the alleged improvements or omissions in the statements of respondent No.2, are matters to be examined during the course of investigation, especially the F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia.

10. It is very much 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 Bhajan Lal (supra), 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.

11. In respect of the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 has not produced or enclosed any telephonic conversion, messages or any other material in support of her complaint or her statement is concerned, whether any such telephonic conversations or messages existed or not and any other material is there to connect the petitioner with the crime, are also to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is under progress. Mere non-enclosing of such material along with the complaint or statement, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage.

12. It is relevant to mention that in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated the limited scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, holding that such power may be exercised only in exceptional cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence, are inherently improbable, legally barred, or manifestly mala fide, while cautioning that the categories so enumerated are illustrative and the power must be exercised sparingly.

13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others ((2021) 19 SCC 401), wherein it was emphasized that the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences and that Courts should not interdict investigation at the threshold unless no cognizable offence is disclosed on a plain reading of the FIR; the FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia of all facts, and criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at their nascent stage

14. It is already stated supra, that the complaint and the statement given by respondent No.2 contain specific allegation of sexual assault committed by the petitioner and also other allegations insisting her to have an intimate relationship with him, when she refused, he threatened to kill her and her family members. The said allegations prima facie disclose the commission of 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.195 of 2026 against the petitioner 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.195 of 2026 of Yacharam Police Station, Future City, against the petitioner.

16. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.