Telangana High Court
Ambati Vishnu Kiran And Another vs Md. Firoze Parvin And Another on 13 March, 2026
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2049 of 2021
Date:13.03.2026
Between:
Ambati Vishnu Kiran and another
...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2
And
Md. Firoze Parvin and another.
... Respondents
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC No.88 of 2021 on the file of xvii Additional District Judge cum I-Special Sessions Judge for the trial of cases of Atrocities against Women at L.B. Nagar, for the offences under Sections 376(1) and 420 IPC against the petitioner No.1 and for the offence under Section 509 IPC against the petitioner No.2.
2. Heard Sri Shaik Madar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Katta Sravya, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1- petitioner No.1 has cheated the de facto complainant-respondent 2 ETD,J Crl.P. No.2049 of 2021 No.2 under the promise of marriage and that he has exploited her sexually b y saying that he would marry her and later on, has denied to marry her, after being in a relation with her for a period of two years and that the petitioner No.2, who is the brother of petitioner No.1, also misbehaved with her. Thus, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint which was registered as Crime No.229 of 2019 and after investigation, police filed charge sheet and the same is numbered as SC No.88 of 2021, for the offences under Sections 376(1), 420 against the petitioner No.1 under Section 506 IPC against the petitioner No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was a consensual relationship between the de facto complainant and the petitioner No.1 and that the petitioner No.1 never induced the de facto complainant for the said relationship and when there is consensual relationship, the ingredients of Section 376 or 420 cannot get attracted and that the de facto complainant is a woman of around 30 years of age and that knowing fully-well about the consequences of such relationship, she lived with the petitioner No.1 on her own consent and that her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim points out that it is a consensual relationship. He further submitted that the de facto complainant made false allegations against the petitioner No.2 also, who is the brother of petitioner No.1, 3 ETD,J Crl.P. No.2049 of 2021 and therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the consent was obtained fraudulently from the de facto complainant. It is only on the inducement of promise of marriage that the de facto complainant has consented for the relationship and that the petitioner No.1 has entertained dishonest intention from the inception of the crime and played with the life of the de facto complainant and that only under the promise of marriage, she has entered into a relationship with the petitioner No.1 and that in the first instance the petitioner No.1 has forced her into the relationship. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Perused the record.
7. The contents of the complaint point out that the de facto complainant was aged around 29 years and working as a Software Engineer. The petitioner No.1 is her colleague and they both developed acquaintance and that the petitioner No.1 has proposed love to her, but she refused his proposal. The petitioner No.1 shifted his residence to Kondapur, which is near to the area where the de facto complainant is residing. He asked her to cook food for him also as he has no gas connection and hence, she used to cook food for 4 ETD,J Crl.P. No.2049 of 2021 him and used to go to his room to give the food. When she visited his house to give him food, he has forcibly performed sexual intercourse with her, stating that he would like to marry her. On the said promise of marriage, she has accepted his relationship and the said relationship went on for a period of about two years and he has also promised her that he would undergo Sunti operation for converting into Islam for marrying her. As per the directions of petitioner No.1, the de facto complainant has shifted her residence near to the house of petitioner No.1. It is also alleged that in January 2017, the brother of the petitioner No.1 i.e. petitioner No.2 herein came to Kondapur and was living along with petitioner No.1 and that when the de facto complainant went to the room of the petitioner No.1, the petitioner No.2 misbehaved with her and when she complained the same to the petitioner No.1, he has not objected his brother and encouraged him to do so against the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that that though the petitioner No.1 has promised to marry her, he went on postponing the same on one pretext or the other.
8. It is specifically stated that on 04.02.2019 the petitioner No.1 informed the de facto complainant that he is shifting his residence and sent a message that he is going to Singapore and sought one month time for marrying her, but it did not happen. Again he has given a date in April 2019 and on the said date also the 5 ETD,J Crl.P. No.2049 of 2021 marriage did not take place and that in the month of April 2019, at around 11.00 p.m., petitioner No.1 called the de facto complainant and told her not to contact him anymore and that he would not marry her. It is further alleged that during the said relationship, the petitioner No.1 has beaten her twice when she questioned him about the marriage.
9. Thus, it is clear from the contents of the complaint that the de facto complainant has consented for the relationship with the petitioner No.1 and the said relationship continued for over a period of two years.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that it is a consensual relationship, while the contention of the learned counsel for the de facto complainant is that the consent was obtained on the promise of marriage. If the contents of the complaint are carefully perused, it is pointed out that on the first occasion the petitioner No.1 has forcibly performed sexual intercourse on the de facto complainant when she went to his residence to give him food. It is also borne out by record that she initially refused the love proposal made by the petitioner No.1, but he has promised her that he would get converted into Muslim community by undergoing Sunti operation and would marry her. It is specifically averred that on 6 ETD,J Crl.P. No.2049 of 2021 the first occasion the intercourse was forceful against the will of the de facto complainant and on the subsequent occasions, he made her to believe by his acts that he would marry her.
11. It is pointed out that the acts of the petitioner No.1 i.e. visiting the doctor and promising to undergo Sunti operation and asking her to shifting her residence to the nearby place of his stay, all these have made her to believe that he intended to marry her. Thus, the truth or otherwise in the allegations and the consent on promise of marriage or absence of marriage can be decided only after a full- fledged trial. Therefore, the prima facie case is made out against the petitioner No.1 for the offences under Sections 376(1) and 420 IPC, the said Sections are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:
"376. Punishment for rape.--
(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
375. Rape.--
A man is said to commit "rape" if he--
(a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or
(b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or 7 ETD,J Crl.P. No.2049 of 2021
(c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or
(d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:--
(First)-- Against her will.
(Secondly) -- Without her consent.
(Thirdly) -- With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt, (Fourthly) -- With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. (Fifthly) -- With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.
(Sixthly) -- With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age.
(Seventhly) -- When she is unable to communicate consent."
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
415. Cheating.--
Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or 8 ETD,J Crl.P. No.2049 of 2021 omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
12. In the present case, the petitioner No.1 is alleged to have made a promise of marriage, had sexual relationship with the de facto complainant for two years and thereafter, he denied to marry her. Thus, prima facie case under the above sections is made out attracted against the petitioner No.1.
13. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations made by the de facto complainant against the petitioner No.2, who is brother of petitioner No.1, are false and he is falsely implicated in the case. But, the contents of the complaint and the statement of LW.1-de facto complainant discloses specific averments against the petitioner No.2 that he misbehaved with the de facto complainant when she went to the house of the petitioner No.1 during his absence. Section 509 IPC is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:
"509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.--
Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine."
9 ETD,J Crl.P. No.2049 of 2021
14. The Petitioner No.2 is alleged to have performed the acts of insulting the modesty of de facto complainant. Hence, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner No.2 for the offence under Section 509 IPC.
15. Therefore, in view of the above held discussion, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court.
16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners-accused Nos.1and 2 before the trial court provided they are represented by a counsel before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall present before the trial court as and when their presence is required.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed ____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA March 13, 2026 KTL