Appeal
Appeal against the FIR registered under section 376 IPC and SC/ST Act
4. The appellant herein seeks to assail the order dated 13th December, 2022, passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 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, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was rejected.
Promise to marry the complainant in the police station through an agreement and accused breached the same
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 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 only on 26th 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 accused appellant went to the de-facto complainant’s house on 24th 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 police station on 25th June, 2021 and reported that the accused appellant was not keeping his word and was showing reluctance in abiding by the terms of the agreement. On the same night, the accused appellant’s mother called the de-facto complainant’s parents. On 26th 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 harass the de-facto complainant and raised new demands about the wedding.
Defacto complainant was given false information about the appellant as if he gone missing
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 infer that the appellant had no intention of marrying her. Subsequently, the accused appellant blocked the de-facto complainant’s calls and messages. On 29th 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.
FIR registered under sections 417 and 420 IPC against the appellant
8. On this complaint, FIR bearing Crime No. 751 of 2021 came to be registered at the Police Station Madhapur (Guttala), Cyberabad on 29th June, 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC and investigation was commenced. The 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 at Kukatpally vide order dated 30th September, 2021.
Another FIR registered under sections 376(2)(n) IPC and s 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act against appellant that despite having sexual intercourse with her refused to marry since the complainant belonged to a lower caste
9. The de-facto 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 on 6th 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 occasions. These incidents allegedly occurred on 4th May, 2021; 11th May, 2021; 28th May, 2021 and 7th 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 the Police Station Madhapur, District Cyberabad where the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 103 of 2022 dated 1st 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.
Facts
19. At the outset, we may note that the police has already submitted a closure report dated 6th June, 2024, in FIR No. 751 of 2021 whereas, a chargesheet dated 30th 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 record, indicates that previously also, i.e., on 23rd January, 2019, the de-facto complainant had lodged a similar complaint at the Police Station, Osmania University, Hyderabad City accusing one ‘Dr. Ranjit 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.
No material to say of prima facie on record to substantiate the allegations of cheating or sexual intercourse under a false marriage
22. Upon appreciating the facts and circumstances narrated above and having given thoughtful 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 levelled in FIR No. 751 of 2021, dated 29th 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.
De facto complainant filed similar complaint against an assistant professor where she was studying
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.
False promise to marry cannot be said that the accused indulged in sexual intercourse with the 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.
Conclusion
30. Having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record, we are of the f irm 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 dated 1st February, 2022, FIR bearing Crime No. 751 of 2021 dated 29th June, 2021, and all proceedings sought to be taken as a consequence thereof, are quashed in entirety.
Acts and Sections involved
– Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
– Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
– Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
– Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST(POA) Act)
– Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
Party
Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag vs. State of Telangana & Anr – Criminal Appeal No. 2879 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3316 of 2023) – 2025 INSC 790 – May 29, 2025 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta.
