Bheemineni Bhanu Chander And 3 Others vs State Of Telangana And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 4340 Tel

Telangana High Court

Bheemineni Bhanu Chander And 3 Others vs State Of Telangana And Another on 27 June, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

            HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

                                 *****

                   Criminal Petition No.2950 of 2022

Between:

Bheemineni Bhanu Chander and others

                                  .....Petitioners
      And

The State of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor and another

                                   .......Respondents


JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 27.06.2025


             HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI


1.    Whether Reporters of Local newspapers     :      Yes/No
      may be allowed to see the Judgment ?

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

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




                                              ____________________
                                                 JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
                                      2




               HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

                   Criminal Petition No.2950 of 2022

                             DATE: 27.06.2025

Between :

Bheemineni Bhanu Chander and others

                                     .....Petitioners
      And

The State of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor and another

                                 .......Respondents



For petitioners              :   Mr. K.Durga Prasad

For Respondents          :       Mrs.    Madhavi,      Assistant    Public
                                 Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.


< Gist:


> Head Note:


? CITATIONS:

2022 Live Law (SC) 599
(2024) 3 SCC 496
(2023) 15 SCC 385
                                      3




           THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

                 CRIMINAL PETITION No.2950 of 2022

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the

petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against

them in F.I.R.No.188 of 2022 of P.S. Raidurgam, Cyberabad District.

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections

376(2)(n), 417 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

(for short 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act').

2. Heard Mr. K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent-State. There is no representation on behalf of respondent

No.2-de facto complainant either on the earlier occasion i.e., 12.06.2025

or today, despite the matter pertaining to the year 2022. Perused the

record.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the de facto complainant,

who is aged about 26 years as on the date of lodging complaint, is a

divorcee with two children, working in the Film Industry as a Movie Writer.

In the year 2019, the petitioner-accused No.1 contacted de facto

complainant on seeing her social media posts and both of them got

acquainted with each other. Though the de facto complainant stated that

she was married and having children, the petitioner-accused No.1 made

a false promise that he will marry her. On 22.05.2020, the petitioner-

accused No.1 allegedly went to her flat, gave her a cool drink that caused

her to become unconscious, and then raped her, recording the act. When

she confronted petitioner-accused No.1 on the next day, he threatened to

post the video online. The parents of petitioner-accused No.1 i.e.,

petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 falsely claiming that their son was

divorced and promising to arrange his marriage with de facto

complainant, convinced her to continue relationship with petitioner-

accused No.1. The petitioner-accused No.1 also acted as if he has

agreed to the marriage. Believing them, the de facto complainant lived

with him, during which, he allegedly raped her multiple times without her

consent or knowledge. When she asked to marry her, he repeatedly

postponed it and eventually refused. All the accused abused her in filthy

language. On 30.09.2021, the petitioner-accused No.1 turned off his

phone, and later, the de facto complainant came to know that petitioner-

accused No.4, who is the wife of petitioner-accused No.1, had not

divorced him. Hence, the present complaint was lodged. Basing on the

said complaint, a case in Crime No.188 of 2022 was registered against

the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are

innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. The de facto

complainant is in the habit of entrapping innocent men, engaging in the

acts of blackmail, and lodge false cases against them. She filed several

cases against many men. The de facto complainant was married five

times. He further submits that the de facto complainant is living in rented

places and in order to evade payment of rents, she is taking shelter of

caste and threatening the owners under SC/ST Act. The relationship

between petitioner-accused No.1 and de facto complainant is purely

consensual. No specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners-

accused Nos.1 to 4 hence the offences alleged against them would not

be attracted, and thus, prayed to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. All

the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet

are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the

proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the

petition.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Ansaar

Mohammad v. The State of Rajasthan 1 held that in the event of the

complainant/victim willingly stayed in a relationship with the appellant,

and thereafter, if the relationship did not work out, eventually, no offence

under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC is made out. Further, in the judgment of

Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that since the relationship between parties was purely

consensual and as the complainant is aged 32 years, she is aware of her

actions. Thus, the ingredients of offence of rape were not made out.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Naim Ahmed v.

State (NCT of Delhi) 3, at paragraph No.22 held as follows:

"In the instant case, the prosecutrix who herself was a married woman having three children, could not be said to have acted under the alleged false promise given by the appellant or under the misconception of fact while giving the consent to have sexual relationship with the appellant. Undisputedly, she continued to have such relationship with him at least for about five years till she gave complaint in the year 2015. Even if the allegations made by her in her deposition before the court, are taken on their face value, then also to construe such allegations as 'rape' by the appellant, would be stretching the case too far. The prosecutrix being a married woman and the mother of three children was matured and intelligent enough to understand the significance and the consequences of the moral or immoral quality of act she was consenting to. Even otherwise, if her entire conduct during the course of such relationship with the accused, is closely seen, it appears that she had betrayed her husband and three children by having relationship with the accused, for whom she had developed liking for him.

2022 Live Law (SC) 599

(2024) 3 SCC 496

(2023) 15 SCC 385

She had gone to stay with him during the subsistence of her marriage with her husband, to live a better life with the accused. ..."

8. As seen from the record, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner-

accused No.1 and the de facto complainant are in live-in relationship

since 2020. Though the alleged incident of rape had occurred on

22.05.2020 and the petitioner-accused No.1 has turned off his mobile on

30.09.2021, the present complaint was lodged by the de facto

complainant on 10.03.2022 i.e., there is a delay in lodging the complaint

and the reason for such delay remained unexplained. It is evident from

the record that the de facto complainant is in the habit of filing similar

complaints.

9. The petitioner-accused No.1 and the de facto complainant are

majors, they are in relationship since 2020 and they have participated in

consensual sex. The de facto complainant, aged about 26 years as on

the date of lodging complaint, being a married woman and mother of two

children, was matured and intelligent enough to understand the

significance and the consequences of the moral or immoral quality of act

she was consenting to and it cannot be said that she acted under the

alleged false promise given by the petitioners herein and or under the

misconception of fact while giving consent to have sexual relationship

with the petitioner-accused No.1. For such consensual acts, the

petitioner-accused No.1 and his family members cannot be made liable.

The aforesaid judgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the

present case. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the considered

opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners

amounts to sheer abuse of process of the law and the same are liable to

be quashed.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the

proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 in F.I.R.No.188

of 2022 of P.S. Raidurgam, Cyberabad District.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 27.06.2025 rev