APHC010431562024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 4 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6928 OF 2024 Between: Mudduluru Venkata Surendra Raju, S/o. Mudduluru Venkata R/o. H.No. 26-3-995, Near RTO Office, Ramanaiah, aged 29 years Bank Colony, B.V. Nagar, Nellore - 524 004. ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (Chinna Bazar Police Station, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District) Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. 2. Yanamala Anusha, D/o. Yanamala Mohan, aged 30 years, R/o. N.C. Kandrika Village, Balayapalli Mandal Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents/Defacto Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the PRC No. 62 of 2024 dated 31.07.2024 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition High Court may be pleased to stay in all further proceedings in PRC No. 62 of 2024 dated 31.07.2024 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore pending disposal of this criminal Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Bhooma Maharshi Counsel for the Respondents: The Public Prosecutor, The Court made the following order: praying that in the the petition. Reddy, Advocate High Court of A.P. APHC010431562024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6928/2024 Between: 1.MUDDULURU VENKATA SURENDRA RAJU,, S/0. MUDDULURU VENKATA RAMANAIAH, AGED 29 YEARS, R/0. H.NO. 26-3-995, NEAR RTO OFFICE, BANK COLONY, B.V. NAGAR, NELLORE - 524 004. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (CHINNA BAZAR POLICE STATION, SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT) REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 2.YANAMALA ANUSHA, D/0. YANAMALA MOHAN, AGED 30 YEARS, R/0. N.C. KANDRIKA VILLAGE, BALAYAPALLI MANDAL TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S); Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.BHOOMA MAHARSHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR r 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6928/2024 ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C)/under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against him in PRC.No.62 of 2024 dated 31.07.2024 on the file of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1 Class, Nellore, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 376 of IPC in Crime No.41 of 2024 dated 23.03.2024 of Chinna Bazar Police Station, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. Heard Sri Bhooma Maharshi Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of 2. the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the sole accused and facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 376 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has nothing to do with the present case. The allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint are that the defacto complainant got acquaintance with the petitioner through her friend and frequently, the petitioner telephoned her and proposed his love towards her. It is also alleged that the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant that he 3. I <F would commit suicide if she refuses to marry him. Thereafter, under the guise of marriage, he exploited her physically and mentally. Subsequently, the petitioner refused to marry her since he lost interest on her and threatened her with dire consequences. Then, she went to the house and asked the parents of the petitioner but they replied that they have nothing to do with the same, vexed with the same, she consumed poison. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet in this matter. The charge sheet itself would show that year 2013, the defacto complainant eloped and married one Maduru Sridhar and lived together for three months. Subsequently, her father took her to the village and performed her marriage with one Malli Peddaiah of Dakkili. But she accompanied him for 15 days only. Thereafter, she left him and joined with said Maduru Sridhar and continued her family life for 1 year and she begot a male child, who is aged about 9 years. After one year, some disputes arose between her and the said Sridhar, on that she left her husband and son. in the Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the offences under Sections 417, 420 and 376 of IPC, cannot be registered at the instance of the complainant who is already married. 4. He would further submit that suppressing the earlier marriages of defacto complainant, the present lodged only to bend the petitioner to the tunes of the defacto complainant. There are no ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 417, 420 and 376 of IPC and continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is a mere abuse of process of law and finally prays for quashment of the case IS case. 4 Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that there are specific allegations made against the petitioner. She would further submit that after investigation, the police filed charge sheet and it clearly shows that there are specific ingredients to attract the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 376 of IPC against the petitioner and finally prays for dismissal of the present petition. 6. A perusal of the record would show that the defacto complainant lodged the present case stating that she got acquainted with the petitioner/accused and later, on the promise of marriage, he exploited her physically and mentally and refused to marry her. However, the charge sheet would reveal that the defacto complainant is married woman and mother of a child aged about 9 years. In such circumstances, whether at the behest of the complainant the present case is sustainable or not, is a matter which requires indulgence of this Court. 7. A question came up before the Apex Court where a married lady alleged that there was an assurance by the accused to enter into wedlock but later on declined and the said aspect is dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of Prashant Bharti \/s. State (NOT of Delhiy wherein it is held at para 17 as follows: "It is relevant to notice, that she had alleged, that she was induced into a physical relationship by Prashant Bharti, on the assurance that he would marry ‘^her. Obviously, an '(2013) 9 see 293 f 5 & inducement for marriage is understandable if the same is made to an unmarried person. The judgment and decree dated 23-9-2008 reveals that the complainant/prosecutrix was married to Laiji Porwal on 14-6-2003. It also reveals that the aforesaid marriage subsisted till 23-9-2008, when the two divorced one another by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. In her supplementary statement dated 21-2-2007, the complainant/prosecutrix accused Prashant Bharti of having had physical relations with her on 23-12-2006, 25-12-2006 and 1-1-2007 at his residence, on the basis of a false promise to marry her. It is apparent from irrefutable evidence, that during the dates under reference and for a period of more than one year and eight months thereafter, she had remained married to Laiji PonA/al. In such a fact situation, the assertion made by the complainant/prosecutrix, that the appellant-accused had physical relations with her, on the assurance that he would marry her. Is per se false and as such, unacceptable. She, more than anybody else, was clearly aware of the fact that she had a subsisting valid marriage with Laiji PonA/al. Accordingly, there was no question of anyone being in a position to induce her into a physical relationship under an assurance of marriage. If the judgment and decree dated 23- 9-2008 produced before us by the complainant/prosccutrix herself is taken into consideration along with the factual position depicted in the supplementary statement dated 21- 2-2007, it would clearly emerge that the complainant/prosecutrix was in a relationship of adultery on 23-12-2006, 25-12-2006 and 1-1-2007 with the appellant- accused, while she w/as validly married to her previous husband Laiji Porwal. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we 6 are satisfied that the assertion made by the complainant/prosecutrix, that she ivas induced to a physical relationship by Prashant Bharti, the appellant-accused, on the basis of a promise to marry her, stands irrefutably falsified." 8. Considering the submissions and in the light of the legal position referred supra, when the defacto complainant is married lady, and therefore. her consent for physical relationship on the garb of false promise of marriage cannot be brought within the framework of the consent obtained on the basis of “misconception of fact”. In the present case, the charge sheet itself would show that the defacto complainant had physical relationship, therefore, it cannot be said that the consent was given under some misconception of fact. In that view, there are no ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 417, 420 and 376 of IPC and continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner is a mere abuse of process of law. 9. In the result, the Criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused in PRC.No.62 of 2024 dated 31.07.2024 on the file of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 376 of IPC in Crime No.41 of 2024 dated 23.03.2024 of Chinna Bazar Police Station, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. 7 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 2. The Station House Officer, Chinna Bazar Police Station, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 3. One CC to Sri Bhooma Maharshi Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two GO’S to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies GPC sree f 4' HIGH COURT DATED: 18/09/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 6928 OF 2024 I 25 SEP 2025 ^ ^ . Current 2>eciion . ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION