BATLANKI KESHAV (KESAVA) KUMAR ANURAGversusSTATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

                 [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 and Order dated 13.12.2022 of the High Court
       for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRLP No. 1759 of 2022

                                    Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv., Kuldeep Jauhari, Sahil Ahuja, Anubhav
       Tyagi, Satish Kumar Tripathi, Prashant Joshi, Amish Aggarwala.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Kumar Vaibhaw, Ms. Devina Sehgal, Yatharth Kansal.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                               Judgment

       Mehta, J.

1.     Heard.
2.     Leave granted.
3.     Despite service of notice, respondent No.2-de-facto complainant1
       has not put in appearance.
4.     The appellant herein seeks to assail the order dated 13th December,
       2022, passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at
       Hyderabad,2 whereby the petition3 filed by the appellant under Section
       482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19734 seeking quashing
       of the FIR bearing Crime No. 103 of 2022 registered at the Police
       Station Madhapur, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable under
       Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 18605 and Section 3(2)
       (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
       of Atrocities) Act, 1989,6 was rejected.


1    Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘de-facto complainant’.
2    Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘High Court’.
3    Criminal Petition No. 1759 of 2022.
4    Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘CrPC’.
5    Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘IPC’.
6    Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘SC/ST(POA) Act’.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                        245

 Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana & Anr.


5.   Succinctly stated, the facts essential for disposal of the appeal are
     noted hereinbelow.
6.   The de-facto complainant i.e., respondent No.2 filed a complaint
     before Police Station Madhapur alleging inter alia that she had
     earlier filed a complaint against the accused i.e., appellant herein,
     and during the course of enquiry of the said complaint, the appellant
     approached the police station along with his mother J. Vijayalakshmi
     and a resolution was arrived at, between the parties in the presence
     of the Inspector of Police to the effect that the appellant would marry
     the de-facto complainant and get the marriage registered at the
     registration office or the Arya Samaj Mandir. A written agreement to
     this effect was drawn up and affirmed by the de-facto complainant
     and the appellant by affixing their signatures. However, the accused
     appellant and his mother started showing reluctance to the marriage
     on one pretext or the other. They made up an excuse that the next
     auspicious date for solemnizing the marriage was only on 26th August
     and stopped communicating with the de-facto complainant or her
     family about wedding arrangements, etc. The accused appellant then
     started mentally harassing the complainant with reference to the
     complaint she had filed at the police station. When she expressed a
     desire to discuss the wedding arrangements and resolve the issues
     about the family’s cold behaviour, the accused appellant went to the
     de-facto complainant’s house on 24th June, 2021 and compelled
     her to indulge in sexual intercourse without ever intending to go
     through with the marriage ceremonies. Being perturbed, the de-
     facto complainant went to the police station on 25th June, 2021 and
     reported that the accused appellant was not keeping his word and
     was showing reluctance in abiding by the terms of the agreement. On
     the same night, the accused appellant’s mother called the de-facto
     complainant’s parents. On 26th June, 2021, the accused appellant
     visited the de-facto complainant and pressurized her to withdraw the
     complaint and inform the Inspector of Police that all the allegations
     levelled by her against him were false. This incident was reported
     by the de-facto complainant to the SHE Team Police. Inspite thereof,
     the accused appellant did not mend his ways and he along with his
     mother continued to harass the de-facto complainant and raised new
     demands about the wedding.
7.   Following this, the de-facto complainant expressed her apprehension
     to the accused appellant that she had doubts about his intent to marry
246                                                              [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                                  Supreme Court Reports


       her. She shared the details of the Telangana State Government’s
       marriage registration procedure with the accused appellant, but he
       refused to pay any heed to her. The de-facto complainant then told
       the accused appellant that if he failed to apply for a slot for registration
       of their marriage as per the Telangana State Government’s marriage
       registration procedure, she would be left with no option but to infer
       that the appellant had no intention of marrying her. Subsequently,
       the accused appellant blocked the de-facto complainant’s calls and
       messages. On 29th June, 2021 the mother of the accused appellant
       called the de-facto complainant and gave her false information that the
       whereabouts of her son were unknown, and that he had gone missing.
       Upon confirming from reliable sources, the de-facto complainant came
       to know that the said information was patently false. She alleged that
       the accused appellant had no intention of marrying her and he along
       with his mother were manipulating and cheating her.
8.     On this complaint, FIR bearing Crime No. 751 of 2021 came to be
       registered at the Police Station Madhapur (Guttala), Cyberabad on
       29th June, 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and
       420 of IPC and investigation was commenced. The anticipatory bail
       application7 preferred by the accused appellant in connection with the
       aforesaid FIR came to be allowed by the XV Additional Metropolitan
       Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally vide order dated
       30th September, 2021.
9.     The de-facto complainant filed yet another complaint before Police
       Station Vanitha, Kozhikode City, Kerala which came to be registered
       as FIR bearing Crime No. 13 of 2021 alleging therein that the
       complainant had come into contact with the accused appellant
       through ‘Bharath Matrimony’ website whilst the accused appellant
       was residing in the United States of America. They agreed to marry
       each other, and the date of the marriage was fixed on 6th January,
       2021. However, the accused appellant avoided the scheduled date
       and returned to the United States of America without marrying her.
       Upon coming back to India, he established sexual relations with
       the de-facto complainant against her wishes in her room located
       at Subhashini Nilayam, Cyberabad on multiple occasions. These
       incidents allegedly occurred on 4th May, 2021; 11th May, 2021; 28th
       May, 2021 and 7th June, 2021. Thereafter, the accused appellant


7    Crl. M.P. No. 946 of 2021.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                               247

    Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana & Anr.


       refused to marry her saying that she belonged to a lower caste.
       Since the Police Station Vanitha at Kozhikode City, did not have
       jurisdiction to entertain the said FIR, the same was forwarded to the
       Police Station Madhapur, District Cyberabad where the impugned
       FIR bearing Crime No. 103 of 2022 dated 1st February, 2022, came
       to be registered for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)
       (n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(POA) Act.
10. Aggrieved, the accused appellant preferred quashing petition8 under
    Section 482 of CrPC seeking quashment of the FIR bearing Crime
    No. 103 of 2022 registered at Police Station Madhapur. The said
    petition came to be disposed of by the High Court vide order dated
    13th December, 2022, with the following observations: -
              “5. It is not disputed that after registration of the Crime
              No.751 of 2021, the petitioner accused and the 2nd
              respondent complainant did not live together. On the
              basis of allegations made in Crime No.751 of 2021, the
              XV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy
              District at Kukatpally vide Crl.M.P.No.946 of 2021 granted
              the relief of anticipatory bail to this petitioner.
              6. Since the petitioner and de facto complainant never
              stayed together after the complaint in FIR No.751 of 2021
              before Madhapur Police Station on 29.06.2021, nor any
              transactions had taken place in between them, this Court
              deems it appropriate to direct the Investigating Officer in
              respect of FIR No.103 of 2022 pending on the file of Station
              House Officer, Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad, to
              conclude the investigation without taking any coercive
              steps against the petitioner-accused. Further, the petitioner-
              accused shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer as
              and when required for the purpose of investigation.”
11. The said order is under challenge in this appeal by special leave.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant has placed
    on record certain photographs of the de-facto complainant depicting
    that she is trying to indulge in self-harm. The translated transcripts
    of the call recordings purportedly exchanged between the accused
    appellant and the de-facto complainant have also been placed on


8     CRLP No. 1759 of 2022.
248                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       record to buttress the submission that the de-facto complainant
       was suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and was
       repeatedly pressurizing the accused appellant to indulge in sexual
       relations. The bona fides of the accused appellant are clear since
       the very inception and the same is evident from the fact that he had
       made all logistic arrangements for the marriage, including booking
       of the venue/hotel, etc. However, it was only after observing the
       aggressive sexual behaviour of the de-facto complainant that the
       accused appellant panicked and was compelled to back out from
       the union with the de-facto complainant.
13. Learned counsel further urged that the FIR No. 751 of 2021 came
    to be registered by the de-facto complainant against the accused
    appellant on 29th June, 2021. In this FIR, a reference to merely one
    incident dated 24th June, 2021, is made, wherein the accused appellant
    had indulged in sexual relations with the de-facto complainant. In the
    subsequent FIR bearing Crime No. 103 of 2022, which was impugned
    before the High Court, the de-facto complainant exaggerated and
    manipulated the facts and alleged that the accused appellant
    indulged in forcible sexual relations with her on multiple occasions
    by deceiving her under a false promise of marriage. The incidents
    of sexual intercourse which are set out in the impugned FIR are
    dated 4th May, 2021; 11th May, 2021; 28th May, 2021 and 7th June,
    2021. Learned counsel urged that if, at all, any such incident had
    occurred with the complainant on these dates, she would not have
    omitted to mention about the same in her previous FIR i.e., Crime
    No. 751 of 2021.
14. It was further contended that the de-facto complainant is an educated
    woman aged 30 years and if, at all, any physical relations were
    established between her and the appellant, the same were with
    her own free will and consent and there was no element of force,
    coercion or deception on the part of the appellant.
15. Learned counsel has also placed on record reports under Section
    173(2) of CrPC, submitted after investigation of FIR No. 751 of 2021
    and FIR No. 103 of 2022, by way of additional documents to point
    out that the complainant is habitual of lodging such complaints. He
    thus urged that the High Court erred in rejecting the prayer made by
    the accused appellant to quash the impugned FIR, which is nothing
    short of a gross abuse of the process of law.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                       249

 Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana & Anr.


16. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the submissions
    made on behalf of the appellant’s counsel.
17. Learned counsel urged that in the present case, the accused appellant
    was acting with mala fide intention since the very inception as he
    developed sexual relations with the de-facto complainant on the
    false promise that he would marry her and later, he resiled from the
    promise. It was further urged that as serious allegations of forceful
    sexual relations are levelled against the accused appellant, this Court
    should refrain from entertaining the prayer of quashing of the FIR
    made on behalf of the accused appellant.
18. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned
    counsel for the accused appellant and learned counsel representing
    the respondent-State.
19. At the outset, we may note that the police has already submitted a
    closure report dated 6th June, 2024, in FIR No. 751 of 2021 whereas,
    a chargesheet dated 30th August, 2024, has been filed in FIR No.
    103 of 2022. The closure report in the FIR No. 751 of 2021 which
    has been placed on record, indicates that previously also, i.e., on
    23rd January, 2019, the de-facto complainant had lodged a similar
    complaint at the Police Station, Osmania University, Hyderabad City
    accusing one ‘Dr. Ranjit Thankappan’, who at the time was working
    as Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at
    Osmania University, for identical allegations of cheating and sexual
    exploitation on the pretext of a false promise of marriage.
20. With reference to the aforesaid findings, it was contended on behalf
    of the accused appellant that the de-facto complainant is habitual
    of lodging such complaints and has falsely implicated the accused
    appellant in the present FIR for oblique motives.
21. The respondent-State has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated
    that the police has found the offences proved against the accused
    appellant after thorough investigation of FIR No. 103 of 2022.
    However, the pertinent assertions made in the petition regarding the
    de-facto complainant suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder,
    her threats of self-harm and the genuineness of the transcriptions of
    the chats which took place between the accused appellant and the
    de-facto complainant have not been disputed/denied.
22. Upon appreciating the facts and circumstances narrated above and
    having given thoughtful consideration to the allegations as set out
250                                                          [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       in the FIR and the chargesheet placed on record by the accused
       appellant, we find that there is no material what to say of prima
       facie material on record to substantiate the allegations of cheating
       or sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage against the
       accused appellant. The allegations levelled in FIR No. 751 of 2021,
       dated 29th June, 2021, and the impugned FIR No. 103 of 2022 are
       at great variance and the inherent contradictions in the two reports
       over the same subject matter cannot be reconciled.
23. The de-facto complainant is a highly educated woman aged 30 years.
    In FIR No. 751 of 2021, she has only alleged about a single sexual
    encounter dated 24th June, 2021. On the contrary, in the impugned
    FIR No. 103 of 2022 which came to be lodged on 1st February,
    2022, 4-5 such incidents have been referenced each of which
    ante-date the FIR No. 751 of 2021. It is thus inherently improbable
    that the complainant would have forgotten or omitted to mention
    these incidents of sexual intercourse made under a false promise
    of marriage while filing the earlier FIR No. 751 of 2021 because
    all the incidents had already taken place as per the version of the
    complainant up to 7th June, 2021 whereas, the FIR No. 751 of 2021
    came to be lodged on 29th June, 2021.
24. A very interesting fact which emerges upon perusal of the closure
    report in FIR No. 751 of 2021 is that the de-facto complainant had filed
    a similar FIR against an Assistant Professor of Osmania University,
    where she was studying.
25. In the chats which have been placed on record along with the
    additional documents, the de-facto complainant, who is referred to
    by the name ‘Muffin’, has admitted that she was manipulative and
    was trying to “get a green card holder”. At one point of time, she also
    stated that it would not be difficult for her to trap the next one. In the
    very same breath, she mentions that she would not waste time with
    the accused appellant and needs to “invest on the next victim”. She
    also mentions that she would irritate her victims to the extent that
    they dump her, and she could happily start with the next one. She
    also stated that she was using the accused appellant.
26. These chats depict the stark reality about the behavioral pattern of
    the de-facto complainant who appears to be having manipulative
    and vindictive tendency.
27. Thus, in our opinion, the accused appellant was absolutely justified in
    panicking and backing out from the proposed marriage upon coming
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                      251

 Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana & Anr.


     to know of the aggressive sexual behaviour and the obsessive nature
     of the de-facto complainant.
28. Hence, even assuming that the accused 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.
29. It is also relevant to mention here that in FIR No. 751 of 2021,
    the de-facto complainant has not even made a whisper about the
    accused appellant dumping her on the ground of her caste. Thus,
    apparently this allegation which has been set out in the subsequent
    FIR No. 103 of 2022 lodged almost after seven months is nothing
    but a sheer exaggeration which must be discarded.
30. Having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances as available
    on record, we are of the firm opinion that allowing prosecution of the
    accused appellant to continue in the impugned FIR No. 103 of 2022
    would be nothing short of a travesty of justice in addition to being a
    gross abuse of the process of Court. The impugned FIR No. 103 of
    2022 is nothing but a bundle of lies full of fabricated and malicious
    unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the complainant. The facts on
    record clearly establish the vindictive and manipulative tendencies
    of the complainant and these aspects have a great bearing on the
    controversy.
31. Resultantly, FIR bearing Crime No. 103 of 2022 dated 1st February,
    2022, FIR bearing Crime No. 751 of 2021 dated 29th June, 2021,
    and all proceedings sought to be taken as a consequence thereof,
    are quashed in entirety.
32. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
33. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain