LexBATLANKI KESHAV (KESAVA) KUMAR ANURAG versus STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 242 : 2025 INSC 790 Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2879 of 2025) 29 May 2025 [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court whereby the petition filed by the appellant seeking quashing of the FIR for the offences punishable u/s.376(2)(n) IPC and s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989, was rejected. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.376(2)(n) – Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(2)(v) – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of establishing sexual relations under false promise of marriage – Complaint by de-facto complainant against the appellant that written agreement between the parties that the appellant would marry the complainant – Later, the appellant and his mother started showing reluctance to the marriage – Allegedly appellant compelled the complainant to indulge in sexual intercourse – Subsequently, the appellant blocked the complainant’s calls and messages – Complainant filed FIR u/ss.417 and 420 IPC against the appellant – Thereafter, another FIR filed alleging that the appellant established sexual relations with the complainant against her wishes on multiple occasions – Appellant filed petition for quashing of the subsequent FIR, which was rejected – Correctness: Held: No prima facie material on record to substantiate the allegations of cheating or sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage against the appellant – Allegations levelled in the two FIR’s at great variance and the inherent contradictions in the two reports over the same subject matter cannot be reconciled – De- facto complainant is a highly educated woman aged 30 years – Inherently improbable that the complainant would have forgotten * Author [2025] 7 S.C.R. 243 Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana & Anr. or omitted to mention the incidents of sexual intercourse made under a false promise of marriage while filing the first FIR because all the incidents had already taken place as per the version of the complainant before filing of the first FIR – Also, the de-facto complainant had filed similar FIR against an Assistant Professor of the University, where she was studying – Chats on record along with the additional documents depict the stark reality about the behavioral pattern of the de-facto complainant who appears to be having manipulative and vindictive tendency – Thus, the appellant 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 – Even assuming that the 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, which was not referred in first FIR – Thus, this allegation set out in the subsequent FIR lodged almost after seven months nothing but sheer exaggeration which must be discarded – Allowing prosecution of the appellant to continue in the impugned FIR would be a travesty of justice and gross abuse of the process of Court – Impugned FIR nothing but a bundle of lies full of fabricated and malicious unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the complainant – Thus, the two FIR’s and all proceedings, quashed in entirety. [Paras 22-31] List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. List of Keywords False promise of marriage; Quashing of FIR; Written agreement; Sexual relations; Retracted from promise to marry; Obsessive nature of de-facto complainant; Inherent contradictions in two FIRs; Highly educated women; Ante-date; Manipulative and vindictive tendency; Trying to “get a green card holder”; Invest on the next victim; Travesty of justice; Unsubstantiated allegations; Abuse of the process of Court; Behavioral pattern of the complainant; Aggressive sexual behaviour; Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community. 244 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2879 of 2025 From the Judgment an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.