1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in SC No.4 of 2025 on the file of Special Sessions Judge (FTC) for Atrocities against Women-2, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 420 and 312 IPC.

2. Heard Sri M. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State and Sri Prakash Yarra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is facing allegations for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 420, 312 IPC, and that the offence under Section 376 (2)(n) IPC is not applicable to the petitioner as there was consensual relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. He further submitted that the de facto complaint is a matured woman and knowing fully well about the consequences, she has entered into the relationship with the petitioner and that she is a habitual complainant and has lodged two other complaints against other men with similar set of allegations. He further submitted that apart from 376(2)(n) IPC, the other offences also do not get attracted against the petitioner, as he never cheated the de facto complainant nor has caused miscarriage to her and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the respondent No.2 has agreed to the physical relationship only upon a promise of marriage by the petitioner and that she believed the petitioner as he was into a government service and being in a responsible position, the petitioner failed to keep up his promise, lured the de facto complainant, entertained physical relationship with her and further has deceived her from the inception of the relationship and with dishonest intention, cheated the de facto complainant. He further submitted that though it is a consensual relationship, it is based on a promise of marriage and hence, the ingredients of Section 376(2)(n) IPC get attracted to the petitioner and that all the contentions are triable issues and hence, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner would not be justified in this case. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contents of the complaint point out that while the de facto complainant was working in the Credit Card Department in Bank of Baroda, she got acquainted with the petitioner herein through phone call and the same developed into a close acquaintance over a period of one year and then the petitioner has promised her that he would marry her and then she developed physical relationship with him. The said relationship continued for a period of five years. It is further alleged that prior to two years of the alleging complaint, she became pregnant and that both of them decided to go for abortion and hence, she has taken pills. Further, on 24.04.2024, the petitioner got married with another lady and that the de facto complainant learnt the same from his friends. Therefore, she lodged the complaint.

7. The allegations would reveal that there was consensual relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. However, there is an alleged promise of marriage. The said promise of marriage is alleged to have been made five years prior to lodging of complaint. According to the contents of the complaint also, the physical relationship with the petitioner continued over a period of five years. The de facto complainant is aged 26 years as on the date of complaint, which means that when she entered into the relationship with the petitioner, she was 21 years old and was a working woman. So, she is well aware of the consequences and further, she mentioned in the complaint that when she conceived two years prior to lodging of the complaint, both of them decided to go for abortion which discloses that the de facto complainant also was willing for abortion. It is reiterated that the de facto complainant was in a physical relationship with the petitioner for a period of five years. It is also to be noted that when the de facto complainant conceived, she along with the petitioner decided to go for abortion and further the de facto complainant continued to be in physical relationship with the petitioner herein for another two years after abortion. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is a consensual relationship. Thus, the petitioner cannot be alleged with any dishonest intention of luring the de facto complainant for sexual relationship and deceiving her. Therefore, the alleged offences do not get attracted against the petitioner herein.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the de facto complainant is in the habit of lodging such complaints and that she lodged FIR No.187 of 2020 before the Mogullapalli Police Station, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District and FIR No.61 of 2023 before the Uppal Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, against some other individuals, and that the present complaint is also filed based on false allegations. The said contention cannot be accepted in toto. However, every case has to be analyzed on its own strengths and weaknesses. In the present case, the contents of the complaint point out that there was a consensual relationship between the de facto complainant and the petitioner herein.

9. In similar facts, in Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi ((2025) 5 SCC 764), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:

               “20. … The relationship between the parties was cordial and also consensual in nature. A mere break of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship. Further, both parties are now married to someone else and have moved on in their respective lives. Thus, in our view, the continuation of the prosecution in the present case would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. Therefore, no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution.”

10. Hence, in view of the above held discussion and in the light of the above cited decision, the petition is entitled to be allowed.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in SC No.4 of 2025 on the file of Special Sessions Judge (FTC) for Atrocities against Women-2, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.