Telangana High Court

Vikas Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 15 December, 2022

Bench: K.Surender

      HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                      AT HYDERABAD
                            *****
            Criminal Petition No.4740 OF 2022

Between:

Vikas Kumar                                   ... Petitioner

                         And
The State of Telangana,
rep. by S.H.O,
Jawahar Nagar Police Staion,
Rep. through Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad and another                       ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:             15.12.2022
Submitted for approval.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
 1  Whether Reporters of Local
    newspapers may be allowed to   Yes/No
    see the Judgments?

 2   Whether the copies of judgment
     may be marked to Law                   Yes/No
     Reporters/Journals

 3   Whether Their
     Ladyship/Lordship wish to see          Yes/No
     the fair copy of the Judgment?


                                             _________________

                                             K.SURENDER, J
                                  2


           * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
                     + CRL.P. No. 4740 of 2022



% Dated 15.12.2022

# Vikas Kumar                                    ... Petitioner

                           And
$ The State of Telangana,
rep. by S.H.O,
Jawahar Nagar Police Staion,
Rep. through Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad and another                             ... Respondents


! Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. P.Vandana

^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan,

                                     Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1
                                 Sri P.Govind Raj for R2.

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

         Criminal Appeal No.1217 of 2022, dated 10.08.2022
                                    3


            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.4740 OF 2022
ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings

against the petitioner/A2 in PRC No.106 of 2021 dated

29.09.2021 on the file of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Medchal.

2. According to the defacto complainant, she is a software

engineer and in the month of June 2020, she came into

contact with the petitioner herein through internet via Bumble

and Instagram. They became friends and met for two months.

In the month of September 2020, when the petitioner

proposed, the 2nd respondent accepted. They visited several

hotels and places. By making false promise of marriage and

giving hopes about future, the petitioner had sexual

intercourse with the defacto complainant. On 25th January

2021 at 10.30 pm, the petitioner forcibly touched her and had

sexual intercourse without her consent and at the same time,

he promised to join her company in Bangalore and stay with

her in a live-in relationship. Though the defacto complainant

sent several company referrals, the petitioner ignored and

started avoiding the defacto complainant. The petitioner was

going out with other women and when questioned, the

petitioner threatened the defacto complainant and her family

and also threatened to leak private videos.

3. For the reason of avoiding the defacto complainant, she

filed complaint on 19.06.2021, which was registered for the

offence under Section 376(2)(n), 417 and 493 of IPC. Having

concluded investigation, the police filed charge sheet for the

said offences.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

both the petitioner and the defacto complainant have

compromised the matter and the defacto complainant is not

inclined to proceed with the case. The 2nd respondent/defacto

complainant filed an affidavit stating as follows:

"3. I submit that the petitioner/Accused and I were in a consensual relationship for a period of 1.2 years and the same had ended on bad terms leading to disputes between me and the petitioner/accused. I submit that the events described in the written complaint I lodged are not reflective of true events. I have lodged the above-said complaint out of anger due to misunderstandings and disputes between me and the petitioner/accused. I further submit that I had faced pressure and stigma from members of my family, relatives, and society. Further,

due to certain ill advise and suggestions from lawyers and friends, I have lodged the above-said complaint dated 19.06.2021. I submit that subsequently, the petitioner/Accused and I have settled our disputes and misunderstandings amicably and I wish to withdraw the complaint.

4. I further respectfully submit that I tender my unconditional apology to this Court for wasting the time and resources of the courts as well as the Respondent Authorities. As such, I would like to submit that the same was neither willful nor wanton on my part and is entirely borne out of pressure, stigma faced as a woman and ill advise. As withdrawing the said complaint is not possible, I am filing the present Compromise petition to get the crime against the petitioner/Accused closed. No useful purpose would be served if the matter is kept pending. More so when we wish to withdraw the complaint. As such the proceeding is required to be closed."

5. Both the petitioner and the defacto complainant were

present in the Court when hearing had taken place. When

enquired, the defacto complainant stated that she was not

inclined to prosecute the case and for the said reason, she

requested the Court to drop all further proceedings against the

petitioner.

6. As seen from the complainant and also Section 161

Cr.P.C statement made, the defacto complainant and the

petitioner are both majors and working. Even according to the

defacto complainant, she had accompanied the petitioner

several times to various places and also had sex consensually,

though she states that it was on account of promise of

marriage. In the said circumstances when the petitioner and

the defacto complainant being adults met and had physical

relationship over a period of time, only for the reason of

subsequently declining to marry would not amount to an

offence of rape. Further, it is no where mentioned in the

charge sheet or the complaint that the petitioner deceitfully

made the defacto complainant believe of lawful marriage and

cohabited with her. When there is no such allegation, the

question of attracting offence under Section 493 of IPC does

not arise.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Kapil

Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi and others [Criminal Appeal

No.1217 of 2022, dated 10.08.2022] while dealing with a case

of alleged rape and parties intended to put an end to the

proceedings, held as follows:

"15. The facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove are peculiar in the present case. Respondent No.2 is a young lady of 23 years. She feels that going through trial in one case, where she is a complainant and in the other case, wherein she is the Accused would rob the prime of her youth. She feels that if she is made to face the trial rather than getting any relief, she would be faced with agony of undergoing the trial.

16. In both the cases, though the charge sheets have been filed, the charges are yet to be framed and as such, the trial has not yet commenced. It is further to be noted that since the Respondent No.2 herself is not supporting the prosecution case, even if the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead, it will end in nothing else than an

acquittal. If the request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to only adding one more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal courts."

8. In the present case, on facts, neither the ingredients of

the offence of rape punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC

nor the ingredients of section 493 of IPC for cohabiting

deceitfully inducing belief of lawful marriage are attracted. It

is not the case that there was any deceit played from the

inception for which reason, an offence of cheating is not

attracted. On facts and also for the reason of parties not being

inclined to proceed with the case, no useful purpose would be

served to keep the proceedings pending. As observed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, when the trial is likely to end in

acquittal and directing to continue such proceedings would

only overburden criminal courts.