KOTHAPALLY KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in P.R.C.No.9 of 2022 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.

(2.) The case of the 2nd respondent is that to pursue higher studies, she went to London where she met the petitioner herein. They were talking on phone regularly at London and when the petitioner proposed his love, the 2nd respondent refused, however, they continued to talk to one another. Petitioner was staying in Leeds and they used to spend weekends by traveling together. In January 2020, after 2nd respondent's 1st semester examines were over, she came back to India and she could not travel back. The petitioner returned in the month of March 2020 and they were going out together. The petitioner went to 2nd respondent's house and convinced her father for marriage. The parents of the petitioner, having agreed for the marriage demanded 40 tulas of gold, Rs.5.00 lahs cash, 100 sq.yds plot and one acre land. On 2/8/2020 engagement was performed in the presence of relatives and Rs.4.00 lakhs cash and two tulas of gold was given. After some time, petitioner started avoiding the 2nd respondent and when questioned, petitioner informed that their parents did not like the proposal of marriage, for which reason, the parents of the 2nd respondent went and met the parents of the petitioner. The petitioner's parents demanded more dowry apart from what was demanded earlier and a meeting was held with the elders. In the said meeting, the petitioner's mother namely Anjamma stated that the character of 2nd respondent was not good and abused them in the said meeting. The petitioner and his brother beat the parents of the 2nd respondent. For the reason of cheating them after engagement, police complaint was filed. The said crime was registered for the offence under Ss. 417, 420, 509, 323 r/w 34 of IPC. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet for the offences under Ss. 376(2)(n) of IPC, 417, 420, 509 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC against A1, A2 for the offence under Sec. 509 of IPC and A3 and A4 for the offences under Ss. 323 r/w 34 of IPC.

(3.) The petitioner herein is A1 questioning the addition of charge of the offence under Sec. 376(2)(n) of IPC when the compliant and Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of the 2nd respondent did not make out any such offence. Even in the charge sheet, there is no reason as to why Sec. 376(2)(n) of IPC was added when the case was initially registered for the offence under Sec. 417, 420, 509 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ansaar Mohammed v. The State of Rajasthan,2022 Live Law (SC) 599. and argued that in the event of a person having stayed on her own in a relationship, if the relationship did not work out eventually no offence under Sec. 376(2)(n) of IPC is made out.