Telangana High Court

Pidathala Prudvi Upadyaya vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 27 December, 2022

Bench: K.Surender

                                  1


         HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                          AT HYDERABAD
                                *****

               Criminal Petition No.9269 OF 2021

Between:
Pidathala Prudvi Upadyaya.                         ... Petitioner

                          And
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad & another                         ... Respondents


DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 27.12.2022

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. 9269 of 2021


% Dated 27.12.2022



# Pidathala Prudhvi Upadyaya.                                    ... Petitioner

                                 And
$ The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad & Others                                           ... Respondents


! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kiran Palakurthi


^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan, Addl. Public

                                       Prosecutor for R1
                                       Sri Srinivas Kavali for R2.


>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred
1
    AIR 2019 Supreme Court 327
2
    (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 675
                                   3


              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.9269 OF 2021
ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against

the petitioners in S.C No.243 of 2021 on the file of I Special Judge

for trial of Cases against Women cum XVII Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. The case of the 2nd respondent is that in the year 2011 while

she was studying Engineering, she got acquainted with the

petitioner, who is of the same age. Both fell in love and decided to

marry. Accordingly, on 16.07.2018, both of them got married at

NFC Nagar, Ghatkeshar in Venkateswara Temple. Thereafter they

went to Ramanthapur and partied with friends and on the same

night, participated in sexual intercourse. Thereafter, the said

physical relation continued. The petitioner allegedly had affair with

another girl and when confronted, the petitioner allegedly stated

that he was not interested in the 2nd respondent and wanted to

marry someone else. The said issue was raised before the parents of

the petitioner, who also supported the petitioner and stated that he

was a man and he can do whatever he wants.

3. On the basis of the said complaint, the police Rachakonda

registered a case and filed chare sheet for the offence under

Sections 496, 420, 376(2)(n) of IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that firstly,

the contents of the complaint and her statements before the police

do not disclose any of the offences alleged. Secondly, the parties

have entered into compromise and living their lives separately. The

2nd respondent had filed an affidavit stating that she does not

intend to prosecute the case.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submits that in such cases of rape, compromise cannot be

considered and compounded by the High Court exercising inherent

powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Any such compromise

recorded would be contrary to the Judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court.

6. As seen from the record, both the petitioner and the 2nd

respondent are aged around 25 years. In the complaint, the 2nd

respondent stated that both of them got married at Venkateshwara

Temple. It is not her case that the marriage ceremony was

fraudulently gone through with the knowledge that it is not a lawful

marriage. Even according to the 2nd respondent, both got married in

the temple premises. For the said reason, it cannot be said that

there was fraudulent intention of this petitioner to go through the

ceremony of marriage, knowing that he was not lawfully married.

When the marriage had taken place in the temple with consent of

both, an offence under Section 496 of IPC is not attracted.

7. The 2nd respondent, no where states that she was made to

believe that the marriage was lawful and consequent to which she

participated in sexual intercourse with the petitioner. Admittedly,

after the marriage, both the petitioner and 2nd respondent had

physical relation over a period of time, as such, it cannot be said

that the act of this petitioner being in sexual relation would amount

to rape.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Dhruvaram

Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra1 held as follows:

"20. Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide

AIR 2019 Supreme Court 327

motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the later falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is also a distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused and not solely on account of the misconception created by accused, or where an accused, on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do. Such cases must be treated differently. If the complainant had any mala fide intention and if he had clandestine motives, it is a clear case of rape. The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 of the IPC."

9. In Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana2, wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held as follows:

"21. Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case like this, the court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives, and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage by the accused; and whether the consent involved was given after wholly, understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of mis-representation made to her by the accused, or where an accused on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to do so. Such cases must be treated differently. An accused can be convicted for rape only if the court reaches a conclusion that the intention of the accused was mala fide, and that he had clandestine motives."