Dismissed

Gurram Balakrishna v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Nov 2024CRLP/13976/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a criminal appeal seeking to quash proceedings for rape and harassment. Declaring the relationship consensual and parties major, the court held the rape charge untenable but dismissed the quashing prayer. The accused was directed to follow Arnesh Kumar guidelines and be summoned for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; directions to issue notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS to petitioner.

Gurram Balakrishna Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132s7 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION N

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gurram Balakrishna, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged about 27 yearc, occ; Student, Ryo. 1- 54, Viswanathapuram, Prakasham district. '...PET|T|C'NERyACbUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public prosecutor High Court of for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad. ...RESP-ONDENT/STATE

¶11

Surepally_Sireesha, D/o. late Venkateswarlu, Aged about 25 years, Occ student, Rl/o. Ramaraonagar, Borabanda, Hydeiabad

¶12

...DEFACT COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT

¶13

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to Crime No. 1249 of 2024 on the file of the Police Station KPHB Colony, Hyderabad, R. R. district.

¶14

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including appearance of the petitioner in Crime No. 1249 of 2O24 on the file of the police Station KpHB Colony, Hyderabad, R- R. district, pending disposal of the criminal petition.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. prabhakar Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No. 2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

HON'BLE^{SMT. JUSTICEJUVVADI SRIDEVI}

¶19

CRIMINAL^{PETITTON No. 13976 of 2024}

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Petitioneriaccused in^{Crime No 1249 of 2024 of P'S'} KPHB Colon1',^{Cyberabad District,registered for the offences} under Sections316,323^{and 504 of IPC and Section 3(r)(s)of} SC/ST^{(POA) Act, 2015, is seeking to quash the proceedings} against him.

¶22

2 Heard Sri. A.Prabhakar^{Rao, learned counsel for p<:titioner}

¶23

and Sri E,.Ganesh,^{learned AssistantPublicProsecutor appeartng} for the State^{and perused the record.}

¶24

Learnecl^{counsel forpetitioner submits ttrat the}

¶25

petitioner/accused^{and de} facto^{complainant/victim are majors} and the relationship^{betweenthem is consensual in nature''}

¶26

The Hon'ble^{SupremeCouttinAnsaar Mohammctdv'The}

¶27

State of Raiasthant,^{held that in the event of the complainanl.l} victim willingly^{stayed in a relationship with the appellant, and} thereafter, if the^{relationship did not work out, eventlrally,no}

¶28

| 2021Liue Law €Clj99

I tI I

offence under Section 376 (2)(n) of IpC is made out. Further, in case of Shambhu Kharwar v. State of (lttar pradesh2, the Hon'ble Supreme Courl held that since the relationship betrveen parties was purely consensual and as the complainant is aged 32 years, she is aware of her actions. Thus, the ingredients of offence of rape were not made out.

¶33

A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner and victim are majors and the relationship between them is consensual, hence, the ingredients ofoffence under Section 376 of IPC are not attracted. In view of the same and as the other offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable below seven years' without going into merits of the matter, this criminal petition is disposed of, directing the police concerned to proceed with the investigation in the above crime after issuing notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS (previously Secrion 41_A of cr'P'c') to the petitioner/accused and they srralr also forow the guidelines of Hon,ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and unother3. The petitioner shall

¶34

':1zoz+;^{: scc} +lo

¶35

' (2014) E SCC 273 .r'..:-

¶36

¶37

¶38

co-operate^{with the Investigating Officer} investigation.

¶39

tn concluding^the

¶40

Pending^{misceiianeousapplications' if any' shallstand}