Kurumpallysrishailam And 2 ... vs State Of Telanagana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 6873 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6873 Tel
Judgement Date : 16 December, 2022

Telangana High Court

Kurumpallysrishailam And 2 ... vs State Of Telanagana And Another on 16 December, 2022

Bench: K.Surender

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.3694 OF 2021
ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings

against the petitioners in FIR No.95 of 2020, dated 13.08.2020 of

P.S.Kulkacherla, Vikarabad.

2. A complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent/defacto

complainant stating that she was in love with the 1st petitioner/A1

for the past five years and she had physical relation with him. The

1st petitioner deceived her by promising to marry her. When the 2nd

respondent was asking him to marry, he stated that he would

marry her after he gets a job. When there was a marriage alliance

for the 2nd respondent, the 1st petitioner inflicted injury on the left

side of his chest and pretended that he would die if she does not

marry. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner got job in the police department

and after completing his job training, he started insulting the 2nd

respondent in the name of caste and refused to marry her stating

that she can go and complain to any one. For the said reason,

written complaint was lodged on 13.08.2020. The said complaint

was registered for the offences under Sections 376, 417, 420, 506,

509 r/w 109 IPC, 3(1)(r) (s), 3(2)(Va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the crime has

to be quashed on two grounds. Firstly, the complaint does not

reveal any forcible acts of rape but consensual sex between the 1st

petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Secondly, the 1st petitioner and

2nd respondent married and are now staying together. The 1st

petitioner and the 2nd respondent appeared before the Legal

Services Committee in the High Court premises and report was also

filed by the Secretary stating that they have appeared and parties

were identified.

4. Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of the 2nd respondent and her

mother was also filed. The 2nd respondent on 10.09.2020 appeared

before the Junior Civil Judge at Pargi and stated that the 1st

petitioner was acquainted and they decided to marry after he

completed his job training as police constable. Thereafter, when she

informed her mother that in the last stage of his training, the 1st

petitioner was not speaking to her properly, a complaint was made

to the police. After returning from training, she married the 2nd

respondent and they are living together, for which reason, she does

not want any proceedings to be continued against the 1st petitioner.

She further stated that they did not have any sexual intercourse

nor the 1st petitioner abused her in the name of caste. The mother

of the 2nd respondent was also examined on the very same day in

which she stated that when the defacto complainant/2nd

respondent informed her that the 1st petitioner was not speaking

with her, they approached the elders, who advised to give a

complaint. However, the marriage was performed and they are

living together. She further stated that since the couple is living

happily, they do not want to proceed with the case.

5. It appears from the record that immediately after lodging of

the complaint and on conclusion of training as police constable by

the 1st petitioner, the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent got

married and living together. Though the criminal complaint was

lodged and the process of investigation had commenced, on

account of the marriage of the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent,

no further investigation was carried out except recording of the

statements of the 2nd respondent and her mother.

6. At the very initial stage, immediately after the complaint was

lodged, the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent have married and

no useful purpose would be served if the investigation is asked to

be completed, which would only consume the time of the police and

also the other government departments for testing of FSL reports

etc.

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] held as follows in a rape case when the

parties approached the Supreme Court:

" 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. As seen from the facts of the case, there is no allegation that

the 1st petitioner had forced the 2nd respondent/defacto

complainant at any point of time and committed rape on her. The

only grievance is that during the final stages of his training as a

police constable, 1st petitioner refused to marry. However, after

returning from the training, they got married and are living

together. For the reason of the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent

being in consensual relationship, this Court deems it appropriate to

quash the proceedings and also in the back ground of the parties

being married and living together.

9. For the aforementioned reasons, the proceedings against the

petitioners/A1 to A3 in FIR No.95 of 2020 on the file of PS,