1 APHC010667982022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9797/2022 Between: Beera Santhosh ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. G SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9797/2022 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 seeking quashment of proceedings pending against him in FIR No. 129 of 2022 on the file of SHO, Uppalaguptam Police Station, Amalapuram, (Erstwile East Godavari District) Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District. 2. Heard Sri G.Simhadri, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Notice served on respondent No.2. It was returned as refused. None represented. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the Accused No.1. He had close acquaintance with the complainant for 10 years to the knowledge of everyone. Learned Counsel would further submit that the relation between petitioner and the 2nd respondent is consensual. Learned counsel would further submit that it is alleged that the petitioner used to call the complainant to the house of his sister i.e., A-3. She used to go outside from the house on one or the other pretext. During such time, accused by using deceitful words and by assuring the complainant that he will marry her obtained her consent for sexual intercourse. That apart he took Rs.3,50,000/- from the complainant and the victim by pledging her gold 3 ornaments in the bank gave money to A1 several times. It is further alleged that the complainant after coming to know the about the marriage proposal of A1, she called him over phone. He simply rejected, saying that he did not like her, their marriage will not happen and if she comes to his sister’s house, he will die. On that the complainant consumed the pesticide poison, she was immediately shifted to hospital while getting treatment, her statement was recorded basing on which the case is lodged against the petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition stating that though the petitioner and the complainant maintained relationship for considerable period of time, this Court cannot decide at this stage, whether the consent obtained from the complainant on the assurance of marriage for having sexual intercourse with her is under misconceptions of fact or not. It is not a fit case for quashment. 5. Considering the submissions made, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, there is prima facie material against the petitioner to continue criminal proceedings against him. This is not a fit case for quashment by conducting a mini trial. Hence, the petition deserves dismissal. 6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 19.02.2025 UPS 4 416 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.9797 of 2022 Dt.19.02.2025 UPS