Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
He was accused of having forced sex with two men after his devotees cursed them to get paralysed and threatened to kill them. The Telangana High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings against him. During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer looked into a number of factual issues, and the bench of Justice K. Lakshman ruled as follows: According to the Court's preliminary findings, the petitioner/accused is the subject of serious allegations, and the crime under Section 377 of the IPC is a crime against society. This is the situation as it stands. As a result of their losses, the de facto complainant's brother (respondent No.2) and his business partners approached the petitioner and asked for his blessing to make money in their business.
However, the petitioner called them into his personal rest room and forced them to have sex with him, which they refused to do. He then cursed them to get paralysis while his devotees threatened to kill them if they did not comply. After that, they allegedly agreed to have frequent sexual encounters with the petitioner/accused as a result of the threat. Both of the victims escaped after being beaten by 500 devotees of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 (de facto complainant) filed the current complaint against the petitioner because they feared for their lives. Insights from the court The Court noted at the outset that, according to the complaint, there was sex between two adults of the same gender, and the only question for the Court to consider was whether it was consensual or not. This is a factual aspect that needs to be investigated, the court noted, because the brother of respondent No.2 allegedly engaged in sexual acts with petitioners under threat of punishment. As part of the investigation, the Investigating Officer must determine whether the brother of respondent No.2 and his friend engaged in sexual acts with petitioner voluntarily or forcibly, as well as whether there was consensual participation.
However, sexual conduct between adults of the same sex without consent was still punishable. Further, the Court noted that criminal proceedings cannot be halted if the complaint contains prima facie evidence of the alleged offence. Accordingly, the Court ruled: The petitioner's case must be thoroughly investigated before a decision can be made. As a result, this Court is hesitant to put an end to the current investigation. It was ruled that because the petitioners had not established a valid reason to quash proceedings, it should be dismissed.
Allow Cookies!By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.