1 SUN, J Crl.P.No.7852 of 2022 APHC010527252022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3604] TUESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7852/2022 Between: 1. ARIKAPUDI RAJ KISHAN, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. R/O. FLAT NO. 302 SRI PURNA RESIDENCY, SRIRAMNAGAR, KANURU VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT 2218, HALLSY CIRCLE, DAVIS CITY, CALIFORNIA STATE, USA. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI. 2. KRAPA SRUTHI, D/O. VIJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, WORKING AT USA, R/O. FLAT NO. 31, SRI RAMAS KONERU APTS., RAMACHANDRA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.68 of 2025 on the file of the court of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada arising out of FIR No.,1086 of 2021 of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada, dated 24.11.2021, registered under sections 376(2)(n), 376(D), 120(b), 420, 342, 506 IPC and consequently set aside all further proceedings therein in the interest of justice and pass such. Prayer is amended as per the Court order dated 18.08.2026 in I.A.No.2 of 2026 in Crl.P.No.7852 of 2022. 2 SUN, J Crl.P.No.7852 of 2022 IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 dispense in CF.No.190 of 2022 on the file of the court of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada arising out of FIR No.,1086 of 2021 of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada in the interest of justice and pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 may be pleased to stay all further proceedings CF.No.190 of 2022 on the file of the court of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada arising out of FIR No.,1086 of 2021 of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the prayer as follows: It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No.8816 of 2025 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, arising out of FIR No.1086 of 2021 of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada dated 24.11.2021, registered under sections 376(2)(n), 376(D), 120(b), 420, 342, 506 IPC and consequently set aside all further proceedings therein, in the interest of justice, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice. Instead of: For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CF.No.190 of 2022 on the file of the court of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada arisin out of FIR No., 1086 of 2021 of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to quash the proceedings in 3 SUN, J Crl.P.No.7852 of 2022 P.R.C. No.68 of 2025 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, arising out of FIR No. 1086 of 2021 of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada dated 24.11.2021, registered under sections 376(2)(n), 376(D), 120(b), 420, 342, 506 IPC and consequently set aside all further proceedings therein, in the interest of justice, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice. Instead of: For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CF.No.190 of 2022 on the file of the court of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada arising out of FIR No., 1086 of 2021 of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VENKAT CHALASANI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 4 SUN, J Crl.P.No.7852 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7852 OF 2022 ORDER: This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in P.R.C.No.68 of 2025 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada of the offences under Sections 376(2) (n), 376(D), 120(b), 420, 342, 506 of the Indian Penal Coded (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’). 2. Case of the petitioner in brief: (a) Basing on the report given by the respondent No.2, a case in crime No.1086 of 2021 is registered of the offences under Sections 376(2) (n), 376(D), 120(b), 420, 342, 506 of the Code and after completion of investigation, the investigating officer laid preliminary charge sheet and the same is pending on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Thereafter, the prosecution filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.462 of 2022 to issue non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and the same is allowed vide order dated 24.03.2022 and accordingly, the learned Magistrate had issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. The same is illegal as the petitioner answered the police through E-mail that he is willing to appear and participate the proceedings whenever required. Only to harass the petitioner, prosecution obtained non-bailable warrant. (b) Preliminary charge sheet discloses that there are no traces of any sexual assault or any evidence of recent intercourse. The charge sheet is based on the material which do not even remotely attract the offences alleged and the only material is the statement of respondent No.2 stating that the petitioner had sexual intercourse against her will in the year 2016 when they came to India so as to convince her parents for marriage. The allegations are totally false and concocted. The alleged incidents on which she was sexually 5 SUN, J Crl.P.No.7852 of 2022 exploited on two days i.e. 24.02.2016 and 25.02.2016 are false. The said report is given after lapse of five year nine months. Admittedly, they lived in USA and doing job and there is no reason for them not to marry. After the petitioner has got acquaintance with the respondent No.2, on 14.02.2016, petitioner came to India and then respondent No.2 also accompanied him, she also came to their house, spent time with his family members. Again, both of them left to USA on 06.03.2016. In USA, petitioner introduced one Annam Mahesh who is his friend to the respondent No.2. They both loved each other and subsequently, she also gave report against the said Annam Mahesh as he failed to marry her alleging that he had committed sexual harassment against the respondent. At that time, respondent No.2 also took help of the petitioner but the case went against her. Thereafter, marriage of the petitioner was settled with other lady and after his return to India, marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with whom the marriage is settled. Thereafter, respondent No.2 gave report with false allegations and concocted story so as to harass the petitioner. A statement that she was raped on the promise of marriage and thereafter, not married cannot be treated as a rape except without any material showing that rape occurred. Respondent No.2 is in the habit of giving complaints on the allegations of sexual assaults and the previous complaint which was given against the said Annam Mahesh is also closed as false. The allegations against the petitioner/accused No.1 are absurd and inherently improbable, he has not committed any offence. Only with a mala fide intention, respondent No.2 gave report and continuation of the prosecution would cause damage to the petitioner and spoil the career and reputation of the family members. 3. Case of the prosecution is thus: (a) Petitioner introduced himself to the respondent No.2 that he was super senior in their college, developed acquaintance with her and proposed love and though she initially refused, subsequently, petitioner induced her to love 6 SUN, J Crl.P.No.7852 of 2022 him and thereafter, on 14.02.2016, petitioner induced the respondent No.2 by saying that he would convince her parents at any cost to marry her and brought her to India from USA. Thereafter, he took her to his residents and introduced with his family members. On the next day i.e. on 22.02.2016, both the petitioner and accused No.2 came to her parents’ house and tried to convince her parents to perform marriage of the petitioner with her, but her parents didn’t accept and sought for time. Though accused No.2 requested again and again, parents of the respondent No.2 have not accepted to solemnize their marriage. (b) On 25.02.2016, in the absence of her parents, petitioner went to her house, induced her with deceitful words and had sexual intercourse forcefully against her will by promising that he would marry her. Aggrieved by the same, on the next day, she went to their house and informed about the same to the accused No.2 and then also, he instructed her to speak with petitioner and pushed her into the bed room of petitioner and then also, petitioner had sexual intercourse against her will. Both the petitioner and accused No.2 confined her in their house itself till the evening. On the next day, petitioner went to her house, threatened her not to disclose the issue to her parents and others and for which, she could not reveal the same to others including her parents. Later, on 06.03.2016, they both went to USA and there, she came to know true colors of the petitioner and that only to grab property and earnings of the respondent No.2, he proposed love, enjoyed her and has been avoiding to marry her. (c) Finally, he came down to India along with her money, without her knowledge. Therefore, on 20.11.2021, she came down to India and went to his house and requested both the petitioner and accused No.2 to do justice and then, they abused her and threatened her in dire consequences. Thereafter only, she informed the same to her parents and gave report to police. The same is registered as a case in crime No.1086 of 2021 of the 7 SUN, J Crl.P.No.7852 of 2022 offences as stated supra and after completion of investigation, the investigating officer laid charge sheet of the said offences and obtained non- bailable warrant against the petitioner and during the course of investigation, accused No.2 obtained anticipatory bail. 4. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned senior counsel representing Sri Venkat Chalasani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 refused to receive notice and also failed to submit arguments. 5. Arguments: (a) Sri K.S. Murthy, learned senior counsel initially would argue that in the year 2014, both the petitioner and respondent No.2 have got acquaintance, loved each other and petitioner and his father tried to convince the parents of the respondent No.2 to solemnize her daughter’s marriage with the petitioner, but they refused to do so. Further, the alleged intercourse was happened on 25.02.2016 and thereafter also, both the petitioner and respondent No.2 left to U.S.A together, worked there and respondent No.2 gave complaint against one other person namely A. Mahesh on the same allegations of sexual assault and the same is rejected by the police and during that period also, petitioner helped the respondent No.2. Further, on 11.05.2021, respondent No.2 gave complaint to police, U.S.A against the petitioner and having considered the material, police closed the complaint vide orders dated 18.11.2021 and 21.11.2021, petitioner married other lady and thereafter only, on 24.11.2021, respondent No.2 gave report with false averments, there is a delay of more than five years in giving report and had really any such alleged incident is happened in the year 2016, respondent No.2 should have been given report immediately. 8 SUN, J Crl.P.No.7852 of 2022 (b) Learned senior counsel finally would argue that only to harass the petitioner and his father, respondent No.2 gave report with false averments, that too, after solemnization of marriage of the petitioner with other lady and prior to his marriage, father of the petitioner requested the parents of the respondent No.2, on several occasions, to solemnize her marriage with the petitioner and as such, there is no question of inducing the respondent No.2 to commit the offence of sexual intercourse against her will and relied upon the following judgments: i) Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another1, ii) Charul Shukla v. State of U.P. and Others2, iii) Nitin B. Nikhare v. The State of Maharashtra and Another iv) Surendra Khawse v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another3 v) Shaileshbhai Govindbhai Makwana v. The State of Maharashtra and Another4, (c) Per contra, Smt. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that this is not a stage to consider the contentions of the learned senior counsel, grave allegations of sexual intercourse against to the will of respondent No.2 are leveled, under the guise of marriage, petitioner had exploited the respondent No.2 and though she requested to marry, having postponed for years together, petitioner married other lady and even after her return to India in the year 2021, respondent No.2 went to the house of the petitioner and requested the petitioner and his father, but they failed to heed her words and petitioner married other lady. 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947 2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 476 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2043 4 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 459 9 SUN, J Crl.P.No.7852 of 2022 6. On hearing both sides and upon perusing the material placed on record, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the petitioner has made out a case for quashing the proceedings in P.R.C.No.68 of 2025 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(D), 120-B, 420, 342 and 506 of the Code? 7. The record discloses that, basing on the report of respondent No.2, Crime No.1086 of 2021 was registered and, after investigation, a charge sheet was laid. Initially, the petitioner approached this Court before cognizance was taken. This Court granted interim protection from further proceedings on 28.09.2022 in C.F.No.190 of 2022. Subsequently, cognizance was taken and the case was numbered as P.R.C.No.68 of 2025. The petitioner therefore amended the prayer so as to seek quashing of the proceedings in the said P.R.C. It is also borne out by the record that accused No.2, who is the father of the petitioner, obtained anticipatory bail. Since the Investigating Officer could not secure the presence of the petitioner, the petitioner was shown as absconding in the charge sheet and, thereafter, Crl.M.P.No.462 of 2022 was filed seeking issuance of a non-bailable warrant. 8. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is extraordinary and is required to be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. At the same time, where the allegations in the first information report, the complaint and the material collected during investigation, taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence or do not make out a prima facie case against the accused, the High Court is not precluded from quashing the proceedings. 10 SUN, J Crl.P.No.7852 of 2022 9. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal5, are well settled. Inter alia, criminal proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence; where the allegations and material do not disclose a cognizable offence; where the uncontroverted allegations and evidence collected do not disclose the commission of an offence; where the allegations constitute only a non-cognizable offence without the requisite order of the Magistrate; where the allegations are so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed; where continuation of the proceedings is barred by law; or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive. 10. This Court is conscious that, ordinarily, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it should not embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations and should proceed on the allegations in the complaint/FIR and the material accompanying the same. The Court is also conscious that disputed questions of fact are ordinarily matters for trial. However, where the prosecution material itself, read as a whole, fails to disclose the basic ingredients of the offences alleged, continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 11. In the present case, the gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner is that he had sexual intercourse with respondent No.2 on the representation that he would marry her, although, according to the prosecution, he had no intention of marrying her from the inception. The legal position is that every failure to fulfill a promise to marry does not, by itself, amount to rape. For an allegation of rape founded upon a promise to marry, the material must prima facie indicate that the promise was false from its 5 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 11 SUN, J Crl.P.No.7852 of 2022 inception and that the promise had a direct nexus with the consent for the sexual act. A subsequent failure to marry, by itself, cannot retrospectively convert a consensual relationship into an offence of rape. 12. The prosecution material in the present case contains circumstances which assume significance even when the allegations are taken at their face value. According to the prosecution itself, the petitioner and respondent No.2 were acquainted with each other in the year 2014 and were together before coming to India in the year 2016. The petitioner allegedly represented that he would convince her parents and marry her and, pursuant to that representation, she came to India along with him, in the year 2016. More importantly, the prosecution itself alleges that the petitioner and accused No.2 went to the house of respondent No.2 and requested her parents to solemnize the marriage, but the parents did not agree. The prosecution further alleges that, even thereafter, the petitioner and his father requested the parents to accept the marriage proposal. 13. These allegations are material because they do not, at the threshold, support an inference that the petitioner had made a promise to marry solely as a device to obtain sexual relations while having no intention to perform the promise from the very beginning. On the contrary, the prosecution version itself contains material showing that the marriage proposal was put before the parents and that efforts were made to obtain their consent. The subsequent failure of the marriage, therefore, cannot, without more, be treated as proof of a fraudulent intention existing at the inception of the relationship. 14. The chronology stated in the prosecution material also requires consideration. The alleged incidents of sexual intercourse are stated to have occurred on 25-2-2016 and 26-2-2016. It is not the case of respondent No.2 in her statement that the petitioner continued to commit sexual offences against her after the parties returned to the United States on 06.03.2016. The material instead indicates that the parties remained in the United States thereafter. The 12 SUN, J Crl.P.No.7852 of 2022 prosecution further states that respondent No.2 subsequently requested the petitioner to marry her and that the petitioner postponed the marriage. Thus, the material reflects a relationship which continued after the alleged incidents and which, according to the prosecution itself, subsequently deteriorated. 15. The delay in lodging the report is also a relevant circumstance in the peculiar facts of the present case, though delay by itself can never be treated as a ground to discard an allegation of sexual assault. Respondent No.2 is stated to have lodged the report on 24.11.2021 in respect of incidents alleged to have occurred on 25.02.2016 and 26.02.2016, that too, after the petitioner married other lady. The explanation offered in the prosecution material is that the petitioner threatened her not to disclose the incident. That explanation would ordinarily require appreciation of evidence at trial. However, in the present case, it has to be considered along with the other circumstances appearing from the prosecution version itself, particularly the subsequent continuation of the relationship, the parties' return to the United States together, the absence of any allegation of further sexual assault during the subsequent period and the repeated efforts allegedly made to secure the marriage. 16. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner also support the settled proposition that physical relations pursuant to a promise to marry do not, in every case, constitute rape. In Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a case involving substantial delay in lodging the complaint and quashed the proceedings in the facts and circumstances therein. In Charul Shukla (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered unexplained delay along with the surrounding circumstances while exercising its jurisdiction. 17. In Nitin B. Nikhare (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the mere fact that physical relations were established pursuant to a promise to marry would not amount to rape in every case. The Court emphasized that the 13 SUN, J Crl.P.No.7852 of 2022 promise must have been made with no intention of being fulfilled from the very beginning and that the false promise must have a direct bearing on the consent for the sexual relationship. The Court, on the facts before it, found the relationship to be consensual from the beginning and observed that subsequent circumstances preventing fulfilment of the alleged promise could not, by themselves, establish the requisite criminal intent. 18. Similarly, in Surendra Khawse (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the surrounding circumstances and the delay in lodging the report while exercising jurisdiction in a case involving Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 of the Code. In Shaileshbhai Govindbhai Makwana (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that, where sexual relations are alleged to have been established on a false promise of marriage, there must be a direct nexus between the alleged false promise and the physical relationship and the circumstances must disclose vitiation of consent on account of such misconception of fact. 19. The above principles are required to be applied to the material in the present case. The Court is not undertaking an appreciation of disputed evidence. It is only examining whether the allegations and the material collected by the Investigating Officer, even if accepted as they stand, disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. On such examination, the prosecution material does not prima facie establish that the petitioner made a promise of marriage with a dishonest intention from the inception and that such false promise alone induced respondent No.2 to consent to the alleged sexual relationship. 20. Coming to the alleged offences, Section 376(D) of the Code contemplates commission of rape by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention. The material does not disclose the foundational facts necessary to sustain the allegation of the offence against the petitioner merely on the basis of the presence or conduct 14 SUN, J Crl.P.No.7852 of 2022 attributed to accused No.2. Likewise, the allegation under Section 120-B of the Code requires material disclosing an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or to do a legal act by illegal means. Mere relationship between the petitioner and accused No.2, or the allegation that accused No.2 was present and supported the petitioner, cannot by itself establish the existence of a criminal conspiracy. The prosecution material does not disclose the specific agreement or meeting of minds necessary to constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy. 21. As regards Section 420 of the Code, the essential ingredients include dishonest or fraudulent inducement and delivery of property or valuable security in consequence of such inducement. The prosecution material refers generally to the allegation that the petitioner wanted to take advantage of the money and earnings of respondent No.2. However, there is no specific allegation in the FIR or the statements referred to in the charge sheet identifying the property allegedly delivered by respondent No.2 pursuant to a dishonest inducement by the petitioner or setting out the transaction which would constitute the offence of cheating. A general allegation of an intention to take advantage of another person's earnings, without the foundational facts constituting inducement and delivery of property, is insufficient to sustain Section 420 of the Code. 22. Insofar as Section 342 of the Code is concerned, the prosecution alleges that respondent No.2 was confined in the house till evening, that too, on 26-2-2016. The allegation of confinement is not independently supported by any material referred to in the charge sheet, and the surrounding circumstances relied upon by the prosecution itself, including the subsequent departure of both parties to the United States and continuation of their relationship, materially affect the prima facie inference sought to be drawn against the petitioner. Similarly, the allegation under Section 506 of the Code is that the petitioner threatened respondent No.2 not to disclose the incident. The prosecution material does not set out the precise threat or the 15 SUN, J Crl.P.No.7852 of 2022 circumstances in which it was allegedly made in a manner sufficient, on its face, to establish the statutory ingredients of criminal intimidation. A vague allegation of threat, without the necessary particulars and without material indicating the requisite intention to cause alarm, that too, alleged to have been occurred in the year 2016 cannot by itself sustain a separate prosecution under Section 506 of the Code. 23. The Court is not oblivious to the seriousness of the allegations of sexual assault. Ordinarily, allegations of this nature require a careful investigation and, where a prima facie case is made out, trial in accordance with law. At the same time, seriousness of an allegation cannot substitute for the statutory ingredients of an offence. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court exists precisely to prevent continuation of criminal proceedings where the material collected by the prosecution, even if accepted in its entirety, does not disclose the commission of the offences alleged. 24. In the present case, the prosecution version itself shows that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were in a relationship, that the petitioner expressed an intention to marry her, that he and his father approached her parents seeking their consent for the marriage, that the parties thereafter returned together to the United States, and that the dispute regarding marriage continued thereafter. The material does not disclose facts from which the necessary dishonest intention at the inception of the promise can prima facie be inferred. The subsequent decision of the petitioner to marry another woman may have resulted in a serious personal dispute between the parties, but such subsequent conduct, in the absence of material establishing the requisite intention from the inception, cannot by itself constitute the offence of rape. Admittedly, the documents relied upon by the petitioner, generally cannot be taken in to consideration either in the quash petition or before framing charge and the only material which is to be consideration is that of the material produced by the prosecution. At the same time, the grounds urged by the learned senior counsel that the respondent No.2 gave 16 SUN, J Crl.P.No.7852 of 2022 report to the foreign authorities against one A. Mahesh on the same allegations, the said complaint is closed and further, she also gave report to the police of USA against the petitioner and the same is also closed, cannot be lost sight of. 25. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and applying the principles governing exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. The allegations and the material placed by the prosecution, taken at their face value, do not make out the essential ingredients of Sections 376(2)(n), 376(D), 120-B, 420, 342 and 506 of the Code against the petitioner so as to warrant his being subjected to a criminal trial. 26. In the result, and in view of the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in P.R.C.No.68 of 2025 arising out of Crime No.1086 of 2021 of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(D), 120-B, 420, 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J Dt: 22.09.2026 Vns