Telangana High Court

Halaveth Sukumar vs The State Of Telangana on 10 November, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

    THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.10231 of 2024

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused

seeking to quash the proceedings against him in

C.C.No.3424 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences under

Sections 417, 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

2. Heard M/s. K.Sai Babu, learned counsel for the

petitioner-accused and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. There is no

representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the

respondent No.2 got married to a person and having 2

children. In 2015, she got separated from her husband

without divorce and started living alone at Manikonda and

surviving by working as a beautician. While so, the accused

person got acquaintance with the respondent No.2 and

exchanged phone numbers and were in live in relationship,

promising that he will marry her and when asked to fulfill the

promise made by him he denied to marry and stopped

responding to calls made by the respondent No.2.

Respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner and

a case in Crime No.352 of 2022 of Banjara Hills Police

Station was registered against the petitioner. After

completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed, the same

was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.3424 of

2022 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner was innocent and has been falsely implicated

in the case. The allegations do not disclose prima facie case

of the offences alleged against the petitioner. It is submitted

that the respondent No.2 approached the petitioner stating

that she is unmarried and not having parents and she is a

beautician and running beauty parlour. Believing the same

he started visiting her and then she proposed the petitioner

to marry her. He never used to stay with her. Later petitioner

came to know that she was already married and having

grown up children and not given divorce to her husband.

When the petitioner asked about the same, she informed that

the whereabouts of her husband were not known to her and

she has not given divorce to him. Therefore, the petitioner

stopped visiting her and even not responding to her calls.

Even as per charge sheet and 161 statement of the

witnesses recorded by the police were taken into

consideration, it will not amount to cheating as the

respondent no.2 has not taken divorce from her husband, as

marrying any person without obtaining divorce from her

spouse will amount to further initiation of a crime. Though the

petitioner is not having any intention to cheat initially,

subsequently when he came to know that she was already

married and having children without taking legal divorce he

refused to marry her.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance

on a decision held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh

Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra 1, wherein, it was held

as under:

"26. ii) The physical relationship was going on routinely. But the complainant in her complaint states that after she got a rented room in Shirvane, Nerul Sector 1, Navi Mumbai, in December, 2010, the appellant used to come every day and had sexual

2025 CRI.L.J.168

intercourse everyday, though without her consent and by giving false promise of marriage.

27. Thus, from the above it appears that it is more of an extra-marital affair during the aforesaid period without any insistence by the complainant for getting married to the appellant. The fact that the complainant continued to have a physical relationship for a long time without any insistence on marriage would indicate the unlikelihood of any such promise made by the appellant for marrying her and it rather indicates that the relationship was a consensual one.

In our opinion, the longer the duration of the physical relationship between the partners without protest and insistence by the female partner for marriage would be indicative of a consensual relationship rather than a relationship based on false promise of marriage by the male partner and thus, based on misconception of fact. "

He further relied upon another decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. The State of

Maharashtra & ANR. 2, wherein in para 9, it was held as

under:

"9. In our considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence. This Court has time and again warned against the misuse of the provisions, and has termed it a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section 376 IPC."

Arising out of SLP (Crl.) NO.10044 of 2024

Hence prays to quash the proceedings against the

petitioner.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

State contended that there are specific allegations against

the petitioner and the truth or otherwise of the allegations

levelled against him can only be known after conducting full-

fledged trial before the trial Court, and hence prays to

dismiss the petition.

7. In State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal

and others 3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

1992 SCC (Cri) 426

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

8. As seen from the record, it is evident that the de

facto complainant was already married to another person and

having two children and living separately without taking divorce

from her ex-husband and insisting the present petitioner to marry

her. It appears that the 2nd respondent is well aware of the acts

done by her. This Court opines that long duration of physical

relationship between partners without protest and insistence by

female partner for marriage, would be indicative of a consensual

relationship and in such cases, no allegations of cheating can be

made which would fall within the scope of Section 420 of IPC. As

seen from the complaint and charge sheet, the petitioner and the

de facto complainant are majors and it appears that the