Disposed

Praneeth Doudu, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jan 2026CRLP/12605/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition seeking quashment of proceedings under Section 69 of BNS. Court held that allegations of cheating and harassment prima facie attract the offense and trial is necessary. Attendance of petitioner dispensed with subject to representation.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition disposed of; attendance of petitioner before trial court dispensed with subject to representation by counsel.

Praneeth Doudu, Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

134441

¶2

i I I i I ! ! i I I I I I I t IIi I t i I i

¶3

i I I I i I I I I I

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶5

FRIDAY,TH€ NINTH DAY^{OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY SIX}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURAALE SMT^{JUSTICE TIRUMALADEVIEADA}

¶8

GRIMINAL PETI^{TIONNO: 12f05 OF 2025}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Praneeth Doudu,, S/o.^{Mogili,Aged about 27 years,Occ'Govt employeg,R/9'} H flo. i+-eOli , S'i Colony,-^{Park-alTown AND'Mandal, Hanmakonda District,} Telangana

¶11

...pETrrloNER/AccusED

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana,,^{represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court,} Hyderabad.

¶14

Bochu Pavani,, D/o.^{Bochu Raju, Agedabout 25 years, Occ Pvt Employee,} R/o.15-38, Harijanawada,^{Parkal, Warangal District,Telangana}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶16

Petition under Section 528^{of BNSSpraying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminal Petition.the High courtmay} be pleased to Quash the^{proceedings in F l.R.No'141 of 2025 ParkalP'S,} warangal District numbered^{as P.R.C-No.14 of 2025 on the file of the Addl.} Judicial First class Magistrate^{at Parkal,HanumakondaDistrictin respectof} Petitioner/Accused.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1OF 2025

¶18

Petition under seclion 528 of^{BNSS praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminal Petition,the High court may} be pleased to Stay all further^{proceedings including appearance of the Petitioner} in F.l.R_No.141 of 2025 Parkal^{P.s, warangalDistrict numberedas P.R.C.No.14} of 2025 on the file of the^{Addl. Judicial First class Magistrateat Parkal,} Hanumakonda District,^{pendingdisposal of this petrtron'}

¶19

This Petition coming on for^{hearing,upon perusing he Memorandumof} Grounds of criminal Petition^{and upon hearing the argtr tents of sri KIRAN} KUMAR B, Advocate for the^{Petitioner and sri Jithender Rz o Veeramalla,Addl.} Public Prosecutor on behalf^{of the Respondent No.1 and r< ne appearedfor the} Respondent No.2.

¶20

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

III

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶25

THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE^{TIRUMALADEVIEADA} CRlMINAL PETITION No.12605 of²⁰²⁵

Date:09.01.2026

Between:

Praneeth Doudu

Petitioner/Accused

And

State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another.

¶32

Respondents

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This criminal^petition is filed seeking^{to quashthe proceedings} against the^{petitioner-accusedin PRCl'1o.14of 2O25on the file of} Additional Judicial Magistrate of^{First Classat Parkal, Hanumakonda} District, registered for the offence^{under Section 69 of BNS}

¶35

Heard Sri B. Kiran Kumar,^{learnedcounsel for the} petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Publc Prosecutor for tlrc respondent No.1-State.

¶36

\ 3.^{Learned counselfor the petitionerhas submittedthat the} allegations under Section 69 of BNS do not^{get attracted against the}

¶37

¶38

EfD,J C4.P. No.12605 of 2025

¶39

¶40

petitioner in this case as there was a cons€ r sual relationship between the^petitioner and the de facto complainl tt. The marriage of the petitioner with the de facto complainant u,; s frxed, but later due to some misunderstandings, the alliance was i^'oken. He further submitted that the^petitioner and the de facto cc,t tolainant were in relationship for 8 years prior to lodging the complaint, but surprisingly, the de facto complainant has filed : false complaint. Therefore, in case of consensual relationship, J e offence under Section 65 or 69 of BNS does not get attracte I and hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petiti,: ter.

¶41

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor lt ts submitted that the petitioner has admitted the relationship betvrt en the^petitioner and the de facto complainant and that the ques tior whether the relationship is consensual or under a promise o' marriage can be ascertained during the course of trial and that the petitioner cannot escape from the trial, as the prosecution corJ d collect ample evidence during the course of investigation and th: efore, he^prayed to dismiss the petition

¶42

Perused the recbrd

¶43

ETD,J Crl.P- No.12605 ot m25

¶44

¶45

¶46

A perusal of the complaint points out that tle de facto complainant got acquainted with the petitioner for over.a period of g years and that in January,2024, lE made a marriage proposal to her. She conveyed the same to lrer parents, but initially her parents did not agree and thereafter, they have agreed for the marriage and the marriage was fixed. Subsequently, the petitioner asked the de faclo complainant to leave her job, but shedid not listen to him. The petitioner went to Chattisgarh {o atteM his duties. While so, in May, 2024 during vacation, the petitioner went to the house of lhe de facto complainant in the absence of the ottrer family members and had a physical relationship with her on the pretext that they are about to get married. Thereafter, from October, 2024 he started suspecting the de faclo complainant and harassed her by using abusive language and used to say that he does not like her to work anywhere and thus, she had to resign her inb. FinaHy he expressed that he does not want to marry her. Therefore, tre de facto complainant filed the present complaint. The allegations in the complaint prima facie point out the offence under Section 69 of BNS. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when there is consensual relationship, the offence under Section 69 BNS does nol get attracted to the petitioner and that te de facto complainant is a matured woman and was in total consciousness when she entered

¶47

¶48

¶49

ETO,J Cd.P. No.12605 of2O2S

¶50

] i

¶51

into the physical relationship. ln the present crr ;e,. the physical relationship is alleged to have taken place only al er the marriage was fixed. Thus, the allegations made by the de ;z cfo complainant are that it is only on believing the petitioner that he \ /ould marry her, she had the physicar rerationship. The evidence of t.\ vs. / and g, who are shown to be the erders of the rocarity, arso fars r rr consideration during the course of triar- The truth in the aflegaticr s can be culed out only after a full-fledged trial. Therefore, the pro: )eclings against the petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by disl ensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court.

¶52

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dispos: 1 of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial cc "rrt provided he is represented by a counsel on every date of hearinry before the trial court and he shafl be present before the trial cou( eu and when his presence is required during the course of trial.

¶53

Miscellaneous^petitions pending, if any, shall sti nd closed

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

SD/. M.NAGAMANI
ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR
<br>SECTION OFFICER
\lI

¶56

To,

¶57

a s i s t ra te a t p a rk a r :?l-'.i"t? a;'r :l i fii {[3-, "!'f i # EH Lsj"#,^ffi.[vm+efll6a'i!?rg?J rc,, rc] GE/PSL W

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/01/2026

ORDER

i === :.
oB t{E s rar A o^.''i\.'
)..
ltI i) (f ? 1t I g 20116 +'),z\II
,l .P
* *
im:

¶63

CRLP.No.12605 ot 2Q25

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

[r-,L JKS.sfz/ze

Praneeth Doudu, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praneeth Doudu, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Panduga Bhapiraju Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Aslam, Vs The State of Telangana

Raghuram DandamRaju, Vs The State of Telangana

Jarupala Naveen Vs the State of Telangana

Vijay Krishna alias Pendker Vijay Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

M.Satishwar Vs The State of Telangana