Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 790
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2879 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023)
BATLANKI KESHAV (KESAVA)
KUMAR ANURAG ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF TELANGANA
& ANR. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. Despite service of notice, respondent No.2- de-
1
facto complainant has not put in appearance.
4. The appellant herein seeks to assail the order
th
dated 13 December, 2022, passed by the High
2
Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad,
3
whereby the petition filed by the appellant under
Signature Not Verified
1
Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘de-facto complainant’.
2 Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘High Court’.
3 Criminal Petition No. 1759 of 2022.
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.05.29
17:30:29 IST
Reason:
1
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
4
1973 seeking quashing of the FIR bearing Crime
No. 103 of 2022 registered at the Police Station
Madhapur, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable
under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code,
5
1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
6
Act, 1989, was rejected.
5. Succinctly stated, the facts essential for
disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.
6. The de-facto complainant i.e., respondent No.2
filed a complaint before Police Station Madhapur
alleging inter alia that she had earlier filed a
complaint against the accused i.e., appellant herein,
and during the course of enquiry of the said
complaint, the appellant approached the police
station along with his mother J. Vijayalakshmi and
a resolution was arrived at, between the parties in
the presence of the Inspector of Police to the effect
that the appellant would marry the de-facto
complainant and get the marriage registered at the
registration office or the Arya Samaj Mandir. A
4
Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘CrPC’.
5 Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘IPC’.
6 Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘SC/ST(POA) Act’.
2
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
written agreement to this effect was drawn up and
affirmed by the de-facto complainant and the
appellant by affixing their signatures. However, the
accused appellant and his mother started showing
reluctance to the marriage on one pretext or the
other. They made up an excuse that the next
auspicious date for solemnizing the marriage was
th
only on 26 August and stopped communicating
with the de-facto complainant or her family about
wedding arrangements, etc. The accused appellant
then started mentally harassing the complainant
with reference to the complaint she had filed at the
police station. When she expressed a desire to
discuss the wedding arrangements and resolve the
issues about the family’s cold behaviour, the
de-facto
accused appellant went to the complainant’s
th
house on 24 June, 2021 and compelled her to
indulge in sexual intercourse without ever intending
to go through with the marriage ceremonies. Being
perturbed, the de-facto complainant went to the
th
police station on 25 June, 2021 and reported that
the accused appellant was not keeping his word and
was showing reluctance in abiding by the terms of
3
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
the agreement. On the same night, the accused
appellant’s mother called the de-facto complainant’s
th
parents. On 26 June, 2021, the accused appellant
visited the de-facto complainant and pressurized her
to withdraw the complaint and inform the Inspector
of Police that all the allegations levelled by her
against him were false. This incident was reported
by the de-facto complainant to the SHE Team Police.
Inspite thereof, the accused appellant did not mend
his ways and he along with his mother continued to
de-facto
harass the complainant and raised new
demands about the wedding.
7. Following this, the de-facto complainant
expressed her apprehension to the accused
appellant that she had doubts about his intent to
marry her. She shared the details of the Telangana
State Government’s marriage registration procedure
with the accused appellant, but he refused to pay
any heed to her. The de-facto complainant then told
the accused appellant that if he failed to apply for a
slot for registration of their marriage as per the
Telangana State Government’s marriage registration
procedure, she would be left with no option but to
4
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
infer that the appellant had no intention of marrying
her. Subsequently, the accused appellant blocked
the de-facto complainant’s calls and messages. On
th
29 June, 2021 the mother of the accused appellant
called the de-facto complainant and gave her false
information that the whereabouts of her son were
unknown, and that he had gone missing. Upon
confirming from reliable sources, the de-facto
complainant came to know that the said information
was patently false. She alleged that the accused
appellant had no intention of marrying her and he
along with his mother were manipulating and
cheating her.
8. On this complaint, FIR bearing Crime No. 751
of 2021 came to be registered at the Police Station
th
Madhapur (Guttala), Cyberabad on 29 June, 2021
for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and
420 of IPC and investigation was commenced. The
7
anticipatory bail application preferred by the
accused appellant in connection with the aforesaid
FIR came to be allowed by the XV Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District
th
at Kukatpally vide order dated 30 September, 2021.
7 Crl. M.P. No. 946 of 2021.
5
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
de-facto
9. The complainant filed yet another
complaint before Police Station Vanitha, Kozhikode
City, Kerala which came to be registered as FIR
bearing Crime No. 13 of 2021 alleging therein that
the complainant had come into contact with the
accused appellant through ‘Bharath Matrimony’
website whilst the accused appellant was residing in
the United States of America. They agreed to marry
each other, and the date of the marriage was fixed
th
on 6 January, 2021. However, the accused
appellant avoided the scheduled date and returned
to the United States of America without marrying
her. Upon coming back to India, he established
sexual relations with the de-facto complainant
against her wishes in her room located at
Subhashini Nilayam, Cyberabad on multiple
th
occasions. These incidents allegedly occurred on 4
th th th
May, 2021; 11 May, 2021; 28 May, 2021 and 7
June, 2021. Thereafter, the accused appellant
refused to marry her saying that she belonged to a
lower caste. Since the Police Station Vanitha at
Kozhikode City, did not have jurisdiction to
entertain the said FIR, the same was forwarded to
6
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
the Police Station Madhapur, District Cyberabad
where the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 103 of
st
2022 dated 1 February, 2022, came to be registered
for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n)
of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(POA) Act.
10. Aggrieved, the accused appellant preferred
8
quashing petition under Section 482 of CrPC
seeking quashment of the FIR bearing Crime No.
103 of 2022 registered at Police Station Madhapur.
The said petition came to be disposed of by the High
th
vide
Court order dated 13 December, 2022, with
the following observations: -
“5. It is not disputed that after registration of the
Crime No.751 of 2021, the petitioner accused and
the 2nd respondent complainant did not live
together. On the basis of allegations made in
Crime No.751 of 2021, the XV Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy
District at Kukatpally vide Crl.M.P.No.946 of 2021
granted the relief of anticipatory bail to this
petitioner.
6. Since the petitioner and de facto complainant
never stayed together after the complaint in FIR
No.751 of 2021 before Madhapur Police Station
on 29.06.2021, nor any transactions had taken
place in between them, this Court deems it
appropriate to direct the Investigating Officer in
respect of FIR No.103 of 2022 pending on the file
of Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station,
8 CRLP No. 1759 of 2022.
7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
Cyberabad, to conclude the investigation without
taking any coercive steps against the petitioner-
accused. Further, the petitioner-accused shall co-
operate with the Investigating Officer as and when
required for the purpose of investigation.”
11. The said order is under challenge in this
appeal by special leave.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the accused
appellant has placed on record certain photographs
of the de-facto complainant depicting that she is
trying to indulge in self-harm. The translated
transcripts of the call recordings purportedly
exchanged between the accused appellant and the
de-facto complainant have also been placed on
record to buttress the submission that the de-facto
complainant was suffering from Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and was repeatedly
pressurizing the accused appellant to indulge in
sexual relations. The bona fides of the accused
appellant are clear since the very inception and the
same is evident from the fact that he had made all
logistic arrangements for the marriage, including
booking of the venue/hotel, etc. However, it was only
after observing the aggressive sexual behaviour of
8
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
the de-facto complainant that the accused appellant
panicked and was compelled to back out from the
union with the de-facto complainant.
13. Learned counsel further urged that the FIR No.
751 of 2021 came to be registered by the de-facto
th
complainant against the accused appellant on 29
June, 2021. In this FIR, a reference to merely one
th
incident dated 24 June, 2021, is made, wherein
the accused appellant had indulged in sexual
relations with the de-facto complainant. In the
subsequent FIR bearing Crime No. 103 of 2022,
which was impugned before the High Court, the de-
facto complainant exaggerated and manipulated the
facts and alleged that the accused appellant
indulged in forcible sexual relations with her on
multiple occasions by deceiving her under a false
promise of marriage. The incidents of sexual
intercourse which are set out in the impugned FIR
th th th
are dated 4 May, 2021; 11 May, 2021; 28 May,
th
2021 and 7 June, 2021. Learned counsel urged
that if, at all, any such incident had occurred with
the complainant on these dates, she would not have
9
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
omitted to mention about the same in her previous
FIR i.e., Crime No. 751 of 2021.
14. It was further contended that the de-facto
complainant is an educated woman aged 30 years
and if, at all, any physical relations were established
between her and the appellant, the same were with
her own free will and consent and there was no
element of force, coercion or deception on the part of
the appellant.
15. Learned counsel has also placed on record
reports under Section 173(2) of CrPC, submitted
after investigation of FIR No. 751 of 2021 and FIR
No. 103 of 2022, by way of additional documents to
point out that the complainant is habitual of lodging
such complaints. He thus urged that the High Court
erred in rejecting the prayer made by the accused
appellant to quash the impugned FIR, which is
nothing short of a gross abuse of the process of law.
Per contra , learned counsel for the State
16.
opposed the submissions made on behalf of the
appellant’s counsel.
17. Learned counsel urged that in the present
case, the accused appellant was acting with mala
10
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
fide intention since the very inception as he
developed sexual relations with the de-facto
complainant on the false promise that he would
marry her and later, he resiled from the promise. It
was further urged that as serious allegations of
forceful sexual relations are levelled against the
accused appellant, this Court should refrain from
entertaining the prayer of quashing of the FIR made
on behalf of the accused appellant.
18. We have heard and considered the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
accused appellant and learned counsel representing
the respondent-State.
At the outset, we may note that the police has
19.
th
already submitted a closure report dated 6 June,
2024, in FIR No. 751 of 2021 whereas, a
th
chargesheet dated 30 August, 2024, has been filed
in FIR No. 103 of 2022. The closure report in the
FIR No. 751 of 2021 which has been placed on
rd
record, indicates that previously also, i.e., on 23
January, 2019, the de-facto complainant had lodged
a similar complaint at the Police Station, Osmania
University, Hyderabad City accusing one ‘Dr. Ranjit
11
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
Thankappan’, who at the time was working as
Assistant Professor in the Department of
Communication at Osmania University, for identical
allegations of cheating and sexual exploitation on
the pretext of a false promise of marriage.
20. With reference to the aforesaid findings, it was
contended on behalf of the accused appellant that
the de-facto complainant is habitual of lodging such
complaints and has falsely implicated the accused
appellant in the present FIR for oblique motives.
21. The respondent-State has filed a counter
affidavit wherein it is stated that the police has
found the offences proved against the accused
appellant after thorough investigation of FIR No. 103
of 2022. However, the pertinent assertions made in
the petition regarding the de-facto complainant
suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, her
threats of self-harm and the genuineness of the
transcriptions of the chats which took place between
the accused appellant and the de-facto complainant
have not been disputed/denied.
22. Upon appreciating the facts and circumstances
narrated above and having given thoughtful
12
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
consideration to the allegations as set out in the FIR
and the chargesheet placed on record by the
accused appellant, we find that there is no material
what to say of prima facie material on record to
substantiate the allegations of cheating or sexual
intercourse under a false promise of marriage
against the accused appellant. The allegations
th
levelled in FIR No. 751 of 2021, dated 29 June,
2021, and the impugned FIR No. 103 of 2022 are at
great variance and the inherent contradictions in
the two reports over the same subject matter cannot
be reconciled.
23. The de-facto complainant is a highly educated
woman aged 30 years. In FIR No. 751 of 2021, she
has only alleged about a single sexual encounter
th
dated 24 June, 2021. On the contrary, in the
impugned FIR No. 103 of 2022 which came to be
st
lodged on 1 February, 2022, 4-5 such incidents
have been referenced each of which ante-date the
FIR No. 751 of 2021. It is thus inherently
improbable that the complainant would have
forgotten or omitted to mention these incidents of
sexual intercourse made under a false promise of
13
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
marriage while filing the earlier FIR No. 751 of 2021
because all the incidents had already taken place as
th
per the version of the complainant up to 7 June,
2021 whereas, the FIR No. 751 of 2021 came to be
th
lodged on 29 June, 2021.
24. A very interesting fact which emerges upon
perusal of the closure report in FIR No. 751 of 2021
is that the de-facto complainant had filed a similar
FIR against an Assistant Professor of Osmania
University, where she was studying.
25. In the chats which have been placed on record
along with the additional documents, the de-facto
complainant, who is referred to by the name ‘Muffin’,
has admitted that she was manipulative and was
trying to “get a green card holder”. At one point of
time, she also stated that it would not be difficult for
her to trap the next one. In the very same breath,
she mentions that she would not waste time with
the accused appellant and needs to “invest on the
next victim”. She also mentions that she would
irritate her victims to the extent that they dump her,
and she could happily start with the next one. She
14
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
also stated that she was using the accused
appellant.
26. These chats depict the stark reality about the
behavioral pattern of the de-facto complainant who
appears to be having manipulative and vindictive
tendency.
27. Thus, in our opinion, the accused appellant
was absolutely justified in panicking and backing
out from the proposed marriage upon coming to
know of the aggressive sexual behaviour and the
obsessive nature of the de-facto complainant.
28. Hence, even assuming that the accused
appellant retracted from his promise to marry the
complainant, it cannot be said that he indulged in
sexual intercourse with the de-facto complainant
under a false promise of marriage or that the offence
was committed by him with the de-facto
complainant on the ground that she belonged to the
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community.
29. It is also relevant to mention here that in FIR
No. 751 of 2021, the de-facto complainant has not
even made a whisper about the accused appellant
dumping her on the ground of her caste. Thus,
15
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
apparently this allegation which has been set out in
the subsequent FIR No. 103 of 2022 lodged almost
after seven months is nothing but a sheer
exaggeration which must be discarded.
30. Having considered the entirety of facts and
circumstances as available on record, we are of the
firm opinion that allowing prosecution of the
accused appellant to continue in the impugned FIR
No. 103 of 2022 would be nothing short of a travesty
of justice in addition to being a gross abuse of the
process of Court. The impugned FIR No. 103 of 2022
is nothing but a bundle of lies full of fabricated and
malicious unsubstantiated allegations levelled by
the complainant. The facts on record clearly
establish the vindictive and manipulative tendencies
of the complainant and these aspects have a great
bearing on the controversy.
31. Resultantly, FIR bearing Crime No. 103 of 2022
st
dated 1 February, 2022, FIR bearing Crime No. 751
th
of 2021 dated 29 June, 2021, and all proceedings
sought to be taken as a consequence thereof, are
quashed in entirety.
16
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
32. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
33. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 29, 2025.
17
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2879 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023)
BATLANKI KESHAV (KESAVA)
KUMAR ANURAG ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF TELANGANA
& ANR. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. Despite service of notice, respondent No.2- de-
1
facto complainant has not put in appearance.
4. The appellant herein seeks to assail the order
th
dated 13 December, 2022, passed by the High
2
Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad,
3
whereby the petition filed by the appellant under
Signature Not Verified
1
Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘de-facto complainant’.
2 Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘High Court’.
3 Criminal Petition No. 1759 of 2022.
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.05.29
17:30:29 IST
Reason:
1
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
4
1973 seeking quashing of the FIR bearing Crime
No. 103 of 2022 registered at the Police Station
Madhapur, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable
under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code,
5
1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
6
Act, 1989, was rejected.
5. Succinctly stated, the facts essential for
disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.
6. The de-facto complainant i.e., respondent No.2
filed a complaint before Police Station Madhapur
alleging inter alia that she had earlier filed a
complaint against the accused i.e., appellant herein,
and during the course of enquiry of the said
complaint, the appellant approached the police
station along with his mother J. Vijayalakshmi and
a resolution was arrived at, between the parties in
the presence of the Inspector of Police to the effect
that the appellant would marry the de-facto
complainant and get the marriage registered at the
registration office or the Arya Samaj Mandir. A
4
Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘CrPC’.
5 Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘IPC’.
6 Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘SC/ST(POA) Act’.
2
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
written agreement to this effect was drawn up and
affirmed by the de-facto complainant and the
appellant by affixing their signatures. However, the
accused appellant and his mother started showing
reluctance to the marriage on one pretext or the
other. They made up an excuse that the next
auspicious date for solemnizing the marriage was
th
only on 26 August and stopped communicating
with the de-facto complainant or her family about
wedding arrangements, etc. The accused appellant
then started mentally harassing the complainant
with reference to the complaint she had filed at the
police station. When she expressed a desire to
discuss the wedding arrangements and resolve the
issues about the family’s cold behaviour, the
de-facto
accused appellant went to the complainant’s
th
house on 24 June, 2021 and compelled her to
indulge in sexual intercourse without ever intending
to go through with the marriage ceremonies. Being
perturbed, the de-facto complainant went to the
th
police station on 25 June, 2021 and reported that
the accused appellant was not keeping his word and
was showing reluctance in abiding by the terms of
3
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
the agreement. On the same night, the accused
appellant’s mother called the de-facto complainant’s
th
parents. On 26 June, 2021, the accused appellant
visited the de-facto complainant and pressurized her
to withdraw the complaint and inform the Inspector
of Police that all the allegations levelled by her
against him were false. This incident was reported
by the de-facto complainant to the SHE Team Police.
Inspite thereof, the accused appellant did not mend
his ways and he along with his mother continued to
de-facto
harass the complainant and raised new
demands about the wedding.
7. Following this, the de-facto complainant
expressed her apprehension to the accused
appellant that she had doubts about his intent to
marry her. She shared the details of the Telangana
State Government’s marriage registration procedure
with the accused appellant, but he refused to pay
any heed to her. The de-facto complainant then told
the accused appellant that if he failed to apply for a
slot for registration of their marriage as per the
Telangana State Government’s marriage registration
procedure, she would be left with no option but to
4
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
infer that the appellant had no intention of marrying
her. Subsequently, the accused appellant blocked
the de-facto complainant’s calls and messages. On
th
29 June, 2021 the mother of the accused appellant
called the de-facto complainant and gave her false
information that the whereabouts of her son were
unknown, and that he had gone missing. Upon
confirming from reliable sources, the de-facto
complainant came to know that the said information
was patently false. She alleged that the accused
appellant had no intention of marrying her and he
along with his mother were manipulating and
cheating her.
8. On this complaint, FIR bearing Crime No. 751
of 2021 came to be registered at the Police Station
th
Madhapur (Guttala), Cyberabad on 29 June, 2021
for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and
420 of IPC and investigation was commenced. The
7
anticipatory bail application preferred by the
accused appellant in connection with the aforesaid
FIR came to be allowed by the XV Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District
th
at Kukatpally vide order dated 30 September, 2021.
7 Crl. M.P. No. 946 of 2021.
5
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
de-facto
9. The complainant filed yet another
complaint before Police Station Vanitha, Kozhikode
City, Kerala which came to be registered as FIR
bearing Crime No. 13 of 2021 alleging therein that
the complainant had come into contact with the
accused appellant through ‘Bharath Matrimony’
website whilst the accused appellant was residing in
the United States of America. They agreed to marry
each other, and the date of the marriage was fixed
th
on 6 January, 2021. However, the accused
appellant avoided the scheduled date and returned
to the United States of America without marrying
her. Upon coming back to India, he established
sexual relations with the de-facto complainant
against her wishes in her room located at
Subhashini Nilayam, Cyberabad on multiple
th
occasions. These incidents allegedly occurred on 4
th th th
May, 2021; 11 May, 2021; 28 May, 2021 and 7
June, 2021. Thereafter, the accused appellant
refused to marry her saying that she belonged to a
lower caste. Since the Police Station Vanitha at
Kozhikode City, did not have jurisdiction to
entertain the said FIR, the same was forwarded to
6
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
the Police Station Madhapur, District Cyberabad
where the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 103 of
st
2022 dated 1 February, 2022, came to be registered
for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n)
of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(POA) Act.
10. Aggrieved, the accused appellant preferred
8
quashing petition under Section 482 of CrPC
seeking quashment of the FIR bearing Crime No.
103 of 2022 registered at Police Station Madhapur.
The said petition came to be disposed of by the High
th
vide
Court order dated 13 December, 2022, with
the following observations: -
“5. It is not disputed that after registration of the
Crime No.751 of 2021, the petitioner accused and
the 2nd respondent complainant did not live
together. On the basis of allegations made in
Crime No.751 of 2021, the XV Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy
District at Kukatpally vide Crl.M.P.No.946 of 2021
granted the relief of anticipatory bail to this
petitioner.
6. Since the petitioner and de facto complainant
never stayed together after the complaint in FIR
No.751 of 2021 before Madhapur Police Station
on 29.06.2021, nor any transactions had taken
place in between them, this Court deems it
appropriate to direct the Investigating Officer in
respect of FIR No.103 of 2022 pending on the file
of Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station,
8 CRLP No. 1759 of 2022.
7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
Cyberabad, to conclude the investigation without
taking any coercive steps against the petitioner-
accused. Further, the petitioner-accused shall co-
operate with the Investigating Officer as and when
required for the purpose of investigation.”
11. The said order is under challenge in this
appeal by special leave.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the accused
appellant has placed on record certain photographs
of the de-facto complainant depicting that she is
trying to indulge in self-harm. The translated
transcripts of the call recordings purportedly
exchanged between the accused appellant and the
de-facto complainant have also been placed on
record to buttress the submission that the de-facto
complainant was suffering from Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and was repeatedly
pressurizing the accused appellant to indulge in
sexual relations. The bona fides of the accused
appellant are clear since the very inception and the
same is evident from the fact that he had made all
logistic arrangements for the marriage, including
booking of the venue/hotel, etc. However, it was only
after observing the aggressive sexual behaviour of
8
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
the de-facto complainant that the accused appellant
panicked and was compelled to back out from the
union with the de-facto complainant.
13. Learned counsel further urged that the FIR No.
751 of 2021 came to be registered by the de-facto
th
complainant against the accused appellant on 29
June, 2021. In this FIR, a reference to merely one
th
incident dated 24 June, 2021, is made, wherein
the accused appellant had indulged in sexual
relations with the de-facto complainant. In the
subsequent FIR bearing Crime No. 103 of 2022,
which was impugned before the High Court, the de-
facto complainant exaggerated and manipulated the
facts and alleged that the accused appellant
indulged in forcible sexual relations with her on
multiple occasions by deceiving her under a false
promise of marriage. The incidents of sexual
intercourse which are set out in the impugned FIR
th th th
are dated 4 May, 2021; 11 May, 2021; 28 May,
th
2021 and 7 June, 2021. Learned counsel urged
that if, at all, any such incident had occurred with
the complainant on these dates, she would not have
9
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
omitted to mention about the same in her previous
FIR i.e., Crime No. 751 of 2021.
14. It was further contended that the de-facto
complainant is an educated woman aged 30 years
and if, at all, any physical relations were established
between her and the appellant, the same were with
her own free will and consent and there was no
element of force, coercion or deception on the part of
the appellant.
15. Learned counsel has also placed on record
reports under Section 173(2) of CrPC, submitted
after investigation of FIR No. 751 of 2021 and FIR
No. 103 of 2022, by way of additional documents to
point out that the complainant is habitual of lodging
such complaints. He thus urged that the High Court
erred in rejecting the prayer made by the accused
appellant to quash the impugned FIR, which is
nothing short of a gross abuse of the process of law.
Per contra , learned counsel for the State
16.
opposed the submissions made on behalf of the
appellant’s counsel.
17. Learned counsel urged that in the present
case, the accused appellant was acting with mala
10
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
fide intention since the very inception as he
developed sexual relations with the de-facto
complainant on the false promise that he would
marry her and later, he resiled from the promise. It
was further urged that as serious allegations of
forceful sexual relations are levelled against the
accused appellant, this Court should refrain from
entertaining the prayer of quashing of the FIR made
on behalf of the accused appellant.
18. We have heard and considered the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
accused appellant and learned counsel representing
the respondent-State.
At the outset, we may note that the police has
19.
th
already submitted a closure report dated 6 June,
2024, in FIR No. 751 of 2021 whereas, a
th
chargesheet dated 30 August, 2024, has been filed
in FIR No. 103 of 2022. The closure report in the
FIR No. 751 of 2021 which has been placed on
rd
record, indicates that previously also, i.e., on 23
January, 2019, the de-facto complainant had lodged
a similar complaint at the Police Station, Osmania
University, Hyderabad City accusing one ‘Dr. Ranjit
11
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
Thankappan’, who at the time was working as
Assistant Professor in the Department of
Communication at Osmania University, for identical
allegations of cheating and sexual exploitation on
the pretext of a false promise of marriage.
20. With reference to the aforesaid findings, it was
contended on behalf of the accused appellant that
the de-facto complainant is habitual of lodging such
complaints and has falsely implicated the accused
appellant in the present FIR for oblique motives.
21. The respondent-State has filed a counter
affidavit wherein it is stated that the police has
found the offences proved against the accused
appellant after thorough investigation of FIR No. 103
of 2022. However, the pertinent assertions made in
the petition regarding the de-facto complainant
suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, her
threats of self-harm and the genuineness of the
transcriptions of the chats which took place between
the accused appellant and the de-facto complainant
have not been disputed/denied.
22. Upon appreciating the facts and circumstances
narrated above and having given thoughtful
12
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
consideration to the allegations as set out in the FIR
and the chargesheet placed on record by the
accused appellant, we find that there is no material
what to say of prima facie material on record to
substantiate the allegations of cheating or sexual
intercourse under a false promise of marriage
against the accused appellant. The allegations
th
levelled in FIR No. 751 of 2021, dated 29 June,
2021, and the impugned FIR No. 103 of 2022 are at
great variance and the inherent contradictions in
the two reports over the same subject matter cannot
be reconciled.
23. The de-facto complainant is a highly educated
woman aged 30 years. In FIR No. 751 of 2021, she
has only alleged about a single sexual encounter
th
dated 24 June, 2021. On the contrary, in the
impugned FIR No. 103 of 2022 which came to be
st
lodged on 1 February, 2022, 4-5 such incidents
have been referenced each of which ante-date the
FIR No. 751 of 2021. It is thus inherently
improbable that the complainant would have
forgotten or omitted to mention these incidents of
sexual intercourse made under a false promise of
13
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
marriage while filing the earlier FIR No. 751 of 2021
because all the incidents had already taken place as
th
per the version of the complainant up to 7 June,
2021 whereas, the FIR No. 751 of 2021 came to be
th
lodged on 29 June, 2021.
24. A very interesting fact which emerges upon
perusal of the closure report in FIR No. 751 of 2021
is that the de-facto complainant had filed a similar
FIR against an Assistant Professor of Osmania
University, where she was studying.
25. In the chats which have been placed on record
along with the additional documents, the de-facto
complainant, who is referred to by the name ‘Muffin’,
has admitted that she was manipulative and was
trying to “get a green card holder”. At one point of
time, she also stated that it would not be difficult for
her to trap the next one. In the very same breath,
she mentions that she would not waste time with
the accused appellant and needs to “invest on the
next victim”. She also mentions that she would
irritate her victims to the extent that they dump her,
and she could happily start with the next one. She
14
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
also stated that she was using the accused
appellant.
26. These chats depict the stark reality about the
behavioral pattern of the de-facto complainant who
appears to be having manipulative and vindictive
tendency.
27. Thus, in our opinion, the accused appellant
was absolutely justified in panicking and backing
out from the proposed marriage upon coming to
know of the aggressive sexual behaviour and the
obsessive nature of the de-facto complainant.
28. Hence, even assuming that the accused
appellant retracted from his promise to marry the
complainant, it cannot be said that he indulged in
sexual intercourse with the de-facto complainant
under a false promise of marriage or that the offence
was committed by him with the de-facto
complainant on the ground that she belonged to the
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community.
29. It is also relevant to mention here that in FIR
No. 751 of 2021, the de-facto complainant has not
even made a whisper about the accused appellant
dumping her on the ground of her caste. Thus,
15
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
apparently this allegation which has been set out in
the subsequent FIR No. 103 of 2022 lodged almost
after seven months is nothing but a sheer
exaggeration which must be discarded.
30. Having considered the entirety of facts and
circumstances as available on record, we are of the
firm opinion that allowing prosecution of the
accused appellant to continue in the impugned FIR
No. 103 of 2022 would be nothing short of a travesty
of justice in addition to being a gross abuse of the
process of Court. The impugned FIR No. 103 of 2022
is nothing but a bundle of lies full of fabricated and
malicious unsubstantiated allegations levelled by
the complainant. The facts on record clearly
establish the vindictive and manipulative tendencies
of the complainant and these aspects have a great
bearing on the controversy.
31. Resultantly, FIR bearing Crime No. 103 of 2022
st
dated 1 February, 2022, FIR bearing Crime No. 751
th
of 2021 dated 29 June, 2021, and all proceedings
sought to be taken as a consequence thereof, are
quashed in entirety.
16
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023
32. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
33. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 29, 2025.
17
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023