Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Pachipala Prabhakara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 June, 2025
APHC010498172023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7542/2023
Between:
Pachipala Prabhakara Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. CHALLA AJAY KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
//2//
CRLP.No.7542 of 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7542 of 2023
ORDER:
The petitioner is seeking quash of SC.Spl.No.15 of 2021 on the
file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases, SC ST (POA) Act Court –
IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram.
2. The petitioner is arraigned as the sole accused in SC.Spl.No.15 of
2021 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases, SC ST (POA)
Act Court – IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. The
petitioner is facing trial for alleged offence under Section 376, 420,
354, 354(C)(D), 496, 498-A, 509 IPC, Section 67 of Information
Technology Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of SC, ST
(POA) Act, 2015.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed a complaint on 28.03.2019 alleging
that she, while undergoing Constable training she met the
petitioner who was working as the Reserve Sub Inspector in the
Police Training College as an Instructor. It is also stated that the
petitioner proposed to marry the 2 nd respondent and expressed his
love for her.
4. It is also alleged that the petitioner promised to marry the 2 nd
respondent after conversion from Reserve Sub Inspector to Civil
//3//
CRLP.No.7542 of 2023
Sub Inspector. Thereafter, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent
were moving around closely. It is stated that the 2nd respondent
joined duty as Constable at Parvathipuram Rural Police Station in
January, 2010. It is also stated that the petitioner was on leave at
that point of time and he started living with the 2nd respondent for
short periods and took the 2nd respondent to various places. It is
stated that the petitioner is used to pressurize the 2nd respondent
for physical relationship and that the 2nd respondent had to yield to
his demands as the petitioner kept on repeating the promise of
marriage. The 2nd respondent’s family members as the elders
were looking out for the marriage allegations, she informed her
family members of her affair with the petitioner. It is also submitted
that on 12.04.2017 the petitioner married the 2nd respondent in
presence of elders and after staying for few days, the petitioner
left and used to come once in a month. When the 2nd respondent
insisted the petitioner to take her to the marital home, the
petitioner started to avoid her. When the 2nd respondent insisted
the petitioner to take her to the marital home the petitioner started
to negotiate with the 2nd respondent and also intimidated the 2 nd
respondent stating that he is a police officer and that he can do
anything. It is also stated that the petitioner befriended the 2 nd
respondent only for satisfying his lust. It is also stated that the
//4//
CRLP.No.7542 of 2023
petitioner also shared intimate and nude photos of the 2 nd
respondent with B.Ratna Kumar, Head Constable working in
Government Railway Police Outpost when the same was
questioned, the petitioner stated that he has come to know that
the 2nd respondent was in the process of filing a complaint, as
such, the petitioner threatened to send the nude photos and
videos of the 2nd respondent to all others.
5. The police have completed the investigation and filed charge
sheet by recording the statements of as many as 29 witnesses
apart from the investigation officers.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
admittedly the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were in
consensual physical intimacy from the year 2010 onwards. A
complaint was lodged after a period of nine years. As such, the
allegations under Section 376 IPC or 420 IPC or for that matter
any of the alleged offences cannot be made out against the
petitioner.
//5//
CRLP.No.7542 of 2023
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Pramod
Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 1, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paras 9, 10, 14 is as follows ;
9. The present proceedings concern an FIR registered
against the appellant under Sections 376, 417, 504,
and 506(2) of the IPC and Sections 3(1) (u), (w) and 3(2)
(vii) of SC/ST Act. Section 376 of the IPC prescribes the
punishment for the 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3100 offence
of rape which is set out in Section 375. Section 375
prescribes seven descriptions of how the offence of rape
may be committed. For the present purposes only the
second such description, along with Section 90 of the
IPC is relevant and is set out below.
“375. Rape – A man is said to commit “rape” if he – …
under the circumstances falling under any of the
following seven descriptions-
Firstly …
Secondly. – Without her consent.
… Explanation 2. – Consent means an unequivocal
voluntary agreement when the woman by words,
gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal
communication, communicates willingness to participate
in the specific sexual act:
Provided that a woman who does not physically resist to
the act of penetration shall not by the reason only of that
fact, be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity.”
“90. Consent known to be given under fear or
misconception – A consent is not such a consent as is
intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is
given by a person under fear of injury, or under a
misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act
knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was1
(2019) 9 SCC 608
//6//CRLP.No.7542 of 2023
given in consequence of such fear or misconception;
or…”
10. Where a woman does not “consent” to the sexual
acts described in the main body of Section 375, the
offence of rape has occurred. While Section 90 does not
define the term “consent”, a “consent” based on a
“misconception of fact” is not consent in the eyes of the
law.
14 In the present case, the “misconception of fact”
alleged by the complainant is the appellant’s promise to
marry her. Specifically in the context of a promise to
marry, this Court has observed that there is a distinction
between a false promise given on the understanding by
the maker that it will be broken, and the breach of a
promise which is made in good faith but subsequently
not fulfilled. In Anurag Soni v State of Chhattisgarh9, this
Court held:
“37. The sum and substance of the aforesaid decisions
would be that if it is established and proved that from the
inception the accused who gave the promise to the
prosecutrix to marry, did not have any intention to marry
and the prosecutrix gave the consent for sexual
intercourse on such an assurance by the accused that
he would marry her, such a consent can be said to be a
consent obtained on a misconception of fact as
per Section 90 of the IPC and, in such a case, such a
consent would not excuse the offender and such an
offender can be said to have committed the rape as
defined under Sections 375 of the IPC and can be
convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.”
Similar observations were made by this Court in
Deepak Gulati v State of Haryana10 (“Deepak Gulati“):
“21. … There is a distinction between the mere breach
of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus,
the court must examine whether there was made, at an
early stage a false promise of marriage by the
accused…”
//7//
CRLP.No.7542 of 2023
8. Madhiri Satish Vs. State of A.P.2, this Court held at paras 39, 40
is as follows ;
39. Further, ingredients constituting an offence under
Section 411 I.P.C. are also not made out. The articles
of PW1 found with the accused are not stolen
properties but were retained by him to the knowledge
of PW1. Therefore, possessing them may not amount
to an offence under Section 411 I.P.C.
40. Having regard to above, I feel that the
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not
proved beyond reasonable doubt. May be PW1 must
have moved with the accused and the accused had
forced her to love with him, but the act of sexual
intercourse even assuming it to be there, in my view,
is not by deceit. Thus, considering the judgments
referred to above and in the absence of any cogent
and convincing evidence to that effect, I am inclined
to acquit the appellant on all counts, extending benefit
of doubt.
9. Ramanjanya Raju and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh3,
this Court held at para 6 is as follows ; “This Court perused the
docket order. The Court below has not even applied its mind and
even not taken the cognizance of the case. The order simply
states that the complainant present. Hear. Number the C.C. Issue
summons to the accused on payment of costs. It indicates the
total non application of mind by the Court below and as such, the
docket order dated 05.07.2022 passed in C.F.No.1629 of 2021, is
hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court
2
2021 SCC Online AP 1913
3
CRLP Nos.5627 & 5742 of 2022, decided on 31.08.2023
//8//
CRLP.No.7542 of 2023
below for passing appropriate orders in accordance with the
guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep
S.Wodeyar’s case, as expeditiously as possible”.
10. Rajnish Singh @ Soni Vs. State of U.P and another 4, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paras 7, 12, 21 is as follows ;
7. The appellant initially, was working as a constable in
the police department. Later, in 2009, he joined as a
Clerk in the State Bank of India in Dhani branch of
Maharajganj district. In the intervening period, the
intimacy between the appellant and the complainant
continued to flourish. The appellant had once called the
complainant to Maharajganj, where he made her to
consume some intoxicant mixed with ENO, without her
knowledge, which made her semi-conscious. Taking
advantage, the appellant subjected her to forcible sexual
intercourse. He not only video- graphed the offending
acts but later, showed it to the complainant when she
regained consciousness. The complainant, fearing
retribution in society, did not share information about the
said incident with anyone. Subsequently, the
complainant became pregnant which was confirmed with
a pregnancy detection kit. When this information came
to the knowledge of the appellant, he mixed some
medication in water and made the complainant to drink it
in order to cause miscarriage. Since the appellant
continuously blackmailed and threatened the
complainant using the obscene video, she did not tell
anyone about the abortion.
11. Consequent to the completion of the investigation,
the police submitted a report under Section 173(2) CrPC
dated 29th September, 2022, against the appellant for
the offences punishable under Sections
376, 384, 323, 504 and 506 IPC in the Court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-04,
4
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 279
//9//
CRLP.No.7542 of 2023
Etawah. Vide order dated 10th November, 2022, the
learned Magistrate took cognizance for the above
offences and issued summons to the appellant.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed a criminal petition
under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the
proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1246 of 2022 in the
High Court. The quashing petition stands rejected vide
order dated 24th April, 2023, which is assailed in this
appeal by special leave.
21. There is no dispute that the complainant, a highly
qualified female, was major at the time when her
relationship with the appellant sprouted. The first act of
sexual intercourse between the appellant and the
complainant is alleged to have taken place in the year
2006 and that too in her own house. However, at that
time, the complainant did not make any complaint to
anyone, including her own family members, that the
appellant had established sexual relations with her
based on an express promise to marry her in future. It
needs to be highlighted that the complainant
categorically came out with a case in the FIR that the
first act of sexual relation between her and the appellant
(albeit forcible as per the complainant) took place in her
own house where her parents were also present. The
very manner in which this incident is said to have taken
place, puts the case of the complainant under serious
doubt. It is difficult to swallow that the complainant, a
well-qualified major girl, was subjected to forcible sexual
intercourse by an outsider in her own house where her
parents were present and still, they did not get a whiff
about the incident. Thus, the complainant’s allegations
seem to be a well-orchestrated story and nothing
beyond that.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and there is no
//10//
CRLP.No.7542 of 2023
representation for the 2nd respondent. Perused the material
available on record.
12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent were
maintaining physical intimacy for over nine years prior to the date
of complaint. The allegations under Section 376 IPC may not be
made out. However, the petitioner is said to have married the 2 nd
respondent on 12.04.2017 and the charge sheet would reveal the
statements of independent witnesses apart from family members
who attended the marriage of the petitioner with 2nd respondent.
13. The marriage is also stage managed by the petitioner to exploit
the 2nd respondent. In such circumstances the other provisions of
law for which the petitioner is facing trial would have to be tested
before the trial Court. These are all questions of fact which this
Court cannot go into at this stage. Considering the statement in
the charge sheet and after perusing the statements of the other
witnesses this case is certainly not a fit case for quashing the
SC.Spl.No.15 of 2021, as a prima facie case against the petitioner
is made out for other offences.
14. However, in so far as Section 376 of IPC is concerned the same
deserves to be quashed as the relationship between the petitioner
and the 2nd respondent is evidently a consensual relationship and
//11//
CRLP.No.7542 of 2023
the physical intimacy between the petitioner and the 2 nd
respondent started as early as 2010. The marriage with the 2 nd
respondent is stated to be performed on 12.04.2017 at a temple in
presence of elders and other witnesses. In these circumstances,
this Court is inclined to quash Spl.SC.No.15 of 2021 to the extent
of Section 376 of IPC. The trial shall continue against the
petitioner for all other alleged offences.
15. Accordingly, the criminal petition is partly allowed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.
___________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Dated 25.06.2025
KGM
//12//
CRLP.No.7542 of 2023
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7542 of 2023
Dated 25.06.2025
KGM