The High Court · 2025

5. Mr. P. Ravi, S/o. P. Narayana Swamy Aged about 21 years, Occ: Agriculture PJo. H.No. 4-111, Lachanapalli Viilage, Gutty MD' Ananthapuram Dist, Andhra Pradesh ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2 to 6 AND The State of Telangana, Represented by Station House Officer P.S. Santosh Nagar, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court.may be pleased to call for records relating to the order dated 28.11.2024 in Crl.MP' No. 567 of 2024 in SC. POCSO No. 54 of 2024 on the file of Hon'ble Fast Track Sessions Court For Expeditious Trial Of Rape And Pocso Act Cases, Haca Bhavan At Hyderabad and Quash the same by conducting separate trial of Accused No. 2 to 6 u/s 218 of Cr.P.C. l.A. NO: 'l OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in connection with SC. POCSO No. 54 of 2024 on the file of Hon'ble Fast Track Sessions Court For Expeditious Trial Of Rape And Pocso Act Cases, Haca Bhavan At Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PARIMALA PARlGl, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KTIMAR JUKANTI cRIMINAL PETITION No.866 OF 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is Iiled undei Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSS) by petitioners/ accused Nos.2 to 6 to call for the records relating to the order dated 28.1 1.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.567 of 2024 in SC POCSO No.54 of 2024 on the file of the Special Court for the Trial of Protection of Children From Sexual I . Offenbes iPoCSo) Aqt. Cases, HACA Bhavan at'Hydbrabad,'- "' and quash the same by conducting separate tria'l of petitioners/ accused Nos.2 to 6 under Section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.J.

2. Heard Ms. Parimala Parigi, learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6, and Ms. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Pubtic Prosecutor for respondent- State.

3. Cr1.M.P.No.567 of 2024 in SC POCSO No.54 of 2024 is filed under Section 218 Cr'P.C., before the Fast Track Special Court for the Trial of Protection of Children From 2 JAK, J Crl.P..Vo.866 2025 Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act Cases, Haca Bhavan, Hyderabad, by petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6. By order dated 28.11.2024, the Special Court, passed the following order: "... On a perusal of the provision of law u/Sec.218 of Cr.P.C. (1) For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a sepa-rate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately. Provided that where the accused person by an application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of the opinion that such person is not tikely to be prejudiced thereby, the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the charges framed against such person. So, the Section of Law u/Sec.2l8 Cr.P.C., comes undcr the purview ctf Magistrate Court but ncit S'eSsio'n's C'ourt. The petition filed by the counsel for accused is not maintainable and it is devoid of merits. Hence, this petition is dismi ssed. "

4. Learned counsel for petitioners/ accused Nos.2 to 6 submitted that separate trial of accused Nos.2 to 6 be conducted under Section 2I8 Cr.P.C., and as such the order passed by the trial Court is not in accordance with law. That this Court can direct the trial Court to ta_ke the case under its purview arld pass appropriate orders. l,earned counsel also contended that the trial Court has erroneously come to a co.r.luJi5.r-ihat Section 21g Cr.p.C., /l 3 JAK, J Crl.P.No.866 2025 comes under the purview of Magistrate, but not under the purview of Sessions Judge. It is further submitted that the Sections charged against the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 to 6, as seen, are to be tried separately.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent- State placed reliance on a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in G, Raiagopal o. State, rep,, bg the Inspector of Police (Crl.R.C.No.1003 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.10437 of 2022, dated 06-O9.2022) and conterided that a Criminal Petition is not maintainable and the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 to 6 have to prefer Criminal Revision before the appropriate Court. It is further submitted that petitioner(s) has to invoke the jurisdiction after framing of charges, that in the present case, petitioner(s) invoked Section 2 18 Cr.P.C., before the stage of framing of charges and hence, Crl.M.P.No.567 of 2024 in SC POCSO No.54 of 2024 is a premature petition and is liable to be dismissed on this ground too.

6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 4 JAK, J Crl.P No.866 202 5

7. Petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 filed CrI.M.p.No.567 of 2024 in SC POCSO No.54 of 2024 under Section 2lg Cr.P.C., praying to try each charge separately. The triai Court by order dated 28.11.2024 held that the issue is to be decided by the Magistrate Court, but not by Sessions Court and dismissed the petition filed by petitioners/ accused Nos.2 to 6, as not maintainable and devoid of merits. This order dated 2g. ll.2)24 is under chailenge in the present Criminal petition. I

8. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in G. Rajagopa! (supra), while deaiing with the issue of invoking Section 21g Cr.p.C., in Crl.R.C.No.1003 of 2022, held, as follows: - t'6. Admittedly, the petitioner was charged for the offences under Sections 1 1(i)(ii)(iii) 1iv1 r lw t2 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 354(A) and 509 IpC and Sections 67 and 6Z (A) of Information and Technologr Act, 20o0. After investigation,. the respondent/ Police laid a charge sheei before the Court below. The Court below is yet to hear the prosecution and to frame the charges. Even before hearing the prosecution, the petitioner, with so lttnsl/ /ivulw.mhc.tn. gov.inljudis much anxiety, !b9 the above petition by invoking Section ll: 218 Cr.P.C. and the trial Judge went thiough the 5 JAK. J Crl.P.No.E66 2025 . "o*-i""ion materials and referred several judgments and also invoked Section and has dismissed the petition' 7. On a careful perusal of the records, this Court finds that by invoking Section 218 Cr'P'C by the petitioner is premature and the petitioner ha-s not allo*ed the trial Court to apply its mind and frame if any' "t -g"" ald even after framing chargel' gi.#o". is against that, and if the- petitioner, is irejudiced wit-h regard to framing of charges' he ian challenge the;aid order' Even the petitioner t r" .tot frleI the petition to discharges him from of particular offence' The only Itr" of the petiti'oner is that the charges have n.i.urt ". io be framed separately for the distinct offences' Witttrt allowing the trial Court to apply its mind to frame the charges and that there are no materials to show to testify the order of the trial Court, that what would be the stand taken by the trir.t 6ourt and this Court hnds that by invoking - 2Ia https://www'mhc'tn'gov'inljudis ;;;"" i;Ec by the trial court is a prematurg and though ihe learned counsel for the petitioner subriitted that there are 8 counts in the POCSo a., off"""" ald from the order passed by the trial C"".,, ,ft. materials do not show the cause of action for each count, whether it is beyond one ;;; .. beyond the period of limitation' So without materials ihis Court cannot club together or show that all the charges would be framed by the trial Court. 8. Under these circumstances, this Court frnds ;i"a by invoking Section 2r8 Cr'P'C'' the p"ii1io"!. has hlJ the petition before the trial 'Court which is unnecessary and unwarranted at tkre stage of pending cases for framing charges' ffo*.r.i, whaiever tl're grievance, the trial Court is directed to give opportunity to all the parties and uoti, tn" Ior.r""i before framing charges in accordance with law. 1' \ 6 JAK, J Crl.P.No.866 2025 a,

9. Section 218 Cr.P.C., is as follows: Separate charges for distinct "2La. offences.- (l) For every dist.inct offence of which ary person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately: Provided that where the accused person, by an application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of opinion that such person is not likelv to be prejudiced thereby, the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the charges framed against such person. (2) Nothing in sub-section ( 1) shall affect the operation of the provisions of sections 219,22O, 227 and 223."

10. On perusal of ifre oider,of the,learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in G, RaJagopal (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras is in accordance with Section 218 Cr.P.C., and this Court is not inclined to take a different view. It is also noticed from the order that the appropriate legal remedy to challenge an order passed under Section 218 Cr.P.C., is to file a Criminal Revision and not invoking the jurisdiction of Section 4g2 Cr.p.C., by way of a Criminal Petition. This is also the contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. -=.- 7 JAK J Crl.P.No.E66 2025 I 1. The Criminal Petition filed is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. However, petitioners / accused Nos.2 to 6 a-re at liberty to avail the remedies available under law. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. P.CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// S ON OFFICER To PR pObS-o eoirrt, HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad ' 1 . The Fast Track Session Cou,r-t for experitious of Rape & POCSO Cases' z. in"-stit'6n Hor." otr".i-s;i,io'sn rligar Police Station, Hyderabad' 5. i;; -CE;-b Hvderabad (OUT) 4 ij;;-cai; Snt pnntunu PARlGl, Advocate IoPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies the pubtic piosecutor, Higli Court for the State of Telangana at I HIGH COURT JAK, J DATED:19 10212025 ORDER CRLP.No.866 of 2025 E STA l.l r€ :) ("; 20 -4, .1' J r(t ., i ., .i_--:- DISMISSING THE CRL.PETITION k to