IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANdHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO thousand and twenty FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10500 OF 2022 Between: Chagamreddy Nagendra Kumar Reddy, D/o.Veera Narayana Reddy, Aged about 21 years, Occ:Student, R/o.Pothireddypalli Village, Mydukur, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 2. Mule Subhadra, D/o.Chinna Subba Reddy, aged about 21 years, Occ; Student, R/o.10/2, Pothireddypalli Village, Mydukuru Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. ...Respondents Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.1 in S.C.No.189 of 2021 Special Women Court Cum-VII Addl. District Judge, Kadapa. on the file of the VIII- r v;./ 'fi I.A. NO: 2 OF 202? Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the cifGtimstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceeding in S.C.No.189 of 2021, in respect of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on the file of the VIII- Special Women Court Cum-VII Addl. District Judge, Kadapa. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Rama Lakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt K.Priyanka Lakshmi, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010716172022 •N the high court of ANDHRA PRADESH at amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY ■■ [3396] TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE present THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PFTiTinM NO: 10500/2022 Between: CHAGAMREDDY NAGENDRA KUMAR REDDY, D/0 VEERA NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT R/0 POTHIREDDYPALLI VILLAGE, MYDUKUR KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.MULE SUBHADRA, D/0 CHINNA SUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT R/0 10/2, PTHIREDDYPALLI VILLAGE, MYDUKURU MANDAL YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in S.C.No.189 of 2021 on the file of the Court of VIII Special Women Court-cum-VII Additional District Court, Kadapa for the for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^. 2. Heard Sri S. Rama Lakshmana Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.1, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.1 would submit that 3. Respondent No.2 and Accused No.1 are the classmates and they both fell in love. Learned counsel would further submit that the alleged sexual intercourse is with mutual consent. It is further submitted that the consent has not been obtained by misconception. Learned counsel would further submit that due to the insane behavior of Respondent No.2, the Petitioner herein called off the marriage. The Petitioner and his family members are falsely implicated in the Learned counsel would finally submit that, there are no present case. ingredients to attract the alleged offences against the Petitioner. Learned counsel prays for quashment of the case against the Petitioner/Accused No.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 would submit that 4. there are allegations against Petitioner/Accused No.1 and sought for dismissal of the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may 5. pass appropriate orders. 2 for short ‘I.P.C.’ 3 Point for Determination Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 in S.C.No. 189 of 2021 on the file of the Court of VIII Special Women Court- cum-VII Additional District Court, Kadapa? Determination by the Court A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages 6. 7. that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is alleged in the complaint that, while she was studying B.Com., she got acquaintance with the Petitioner/Accused No.1, who belongs to her village and who was studying in M.S.c. They both loved each other and the same was known to both the families. They both used to roam around and having got trust on him, she surrendered to the Petitioner/Accused No.1 sexually. Subsequently, the Petitioner and his parents refused for the marriage of 8. 4 Respondent No.2 with Petitioner/Accused No.1. As such, she lodged a complaint against Petitioner/Accused No.1 and his parents, who are Accused Nos.2 and 3. 9. It is the contention of the Petitioner that, the alleged sexual intercourse is by mutual consent and due to the insane behavior of Respondent No.2, he refused for the marriage. As such, the present case has been registered with false and untenable allegations. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar’s case (supra), at Para Nos.5, 16 & 18 it was held as under; ’5. In Criminal Application No. 813 of 2016, the appellant moved the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR dated 17 May 2016. By its order dated 7 February 2019 the High Court rejected the application, noting: “3. Though the relationship was with consent, it appears that there was a promise to marry and statement shows that later on, giving reason of caste of Complainant, promise was not kept. 4. In view of this prime facie situation, we are not inclined to intervene in extra ordinary jurisdiction. We make it clear that our observations are only for the purposes of refusing to entertain the grievance in extra ordinary jurisdiction and we have not recorded any finding either way on contentions. ” Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a “misconception of fact’’ that vitiates the woman’s “consent”. On the other hand, a breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no Intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it. The “consent” of a woman under Section 375 is vitiated on the ground of a “misconception of fact” where such misconception was the basis for her choosing to engage in the said act. In Deepak Gulati this Court observed: 16. “21. ... 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 5 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 solely on misrepresentation 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. account of the accused, and not 24. Hence, it is evident that there must be adequate evidence to show that at the relevant time i.e. at the initial stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to marry the victim. There may, of course, be circumstances, when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances. The "failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does not always amount to misconception of fact. In order to come within the meaning of the term "misconception of fact”, the fact must have an immediate relevance”. Section 90 IPC cannot be called into aid in such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in entirety, and fasten criminal liability on the other, unless the court is assured of the fact that from the very beginning, the accused had never really intended to marry her. ” (Emphasis supplied) 18 To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the "consent” of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the "consent” was vitiated by a "misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.” Perusal of contents of the complaint would disclose that Petitioner/Accused No.1 under the promise of marriage, sexually exploited Respondent No.2 and subsequently refused to marry her. Though it is 10. 6 4, contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the alleged sexual intercourse is by mutual consent, the same cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner, since the same is a factual aspect to be decided during trial. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others^, wherein, a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the following principles of law:- 11. “57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; Hi) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); v) While examining an FIFVcomplaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or othenwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vl) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State 3 2021 see OnLine SC 315 7 operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result In miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lai (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and XV) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR. ” (emphasis supplied) 8 % 12. In the instant case, no prime facie material has been placed by the ' Petitioner to prove his innocence of the alleged offences. Since there is verifiable material and factual aspects to be decided during trial, the proceedings against the Petitioner, at this stage, cannot be quashed. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial while deciding the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There are no merits for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner and hence, the petition deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR u //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The VIII Special Women Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur, YSR Kadapa District. House Officer, Mydukur (U/G) Police Station, YSR Kadapa 3. The Station District. 4. One CC to Sri Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies BSV vna HIGH COURT DATED;07/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.10500 of 2022 S 21 MAR 2025 B ^ . Current section DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION