The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad

2. Chevula Buggappa @ Buggaiah, S/o Mogulaiah, Aged about 4iyrs. Qcgt - M;il, R/oit-idersnEtote-Vilhge, Gandipet Mandat, Rangareddy District. ...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances slated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may o" preaseo to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in s.c. POCSO No.828'ot 2022 on the file oithe Fast Track special Judge for Trial and Disposal of RAPE and POCSO Act Cases RangaReddy District at Rajendranagar r.A. NO zoF 2025 PetitionunderSection52SofBNSSprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of inl'p"tition"r/iccused in S.C. POCSO Track Special Judge for bi.posat of RApE and POCSO Act Cases Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition ^Trial . This Petition coming on for hearing' upon perusing the MemoralqlT of Grounds of Criminal PetitLn and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KOTHA MANASA REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRl. JITHENDER RAo vEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No 2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI I ADA CRIMINAL P ETITION No.11 21 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petiticr er-accused seeking to quash the proceedings in SC POCSO No'82t of 2022 on the file of the Fast Track Special Judge for trial anc disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar. for the offences under Sections 366, I 6(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(l) read with 6 of Prevention of Children rom Sexual Assault Offences Act.2012 (for short 'POCSO Act') ar d Section 9 of the Child Marrrage Act, 2006. 2 Heard l\ils. K. Manasa Reddy, learned cotl tsel for the petitionerandSriJithenderRaoVeeramalla'learnr:lAdditional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has subnt ted that the de facto complarnant went along with the petitioner wil 'ully and got married and therefore. the offence of kidnap or rape loes not get attracted against the petitioner. The de facfo complairr' rnt being the father of the alleged victim got furious with the marrial e performed between Ihe de facto complainant and the petitioner a rd thus, has 2 Cd P- No 1t2t ot 2O2S filed this case for taking out his grudge against the petitioner She further submitted that when both the couple are living happily after marriage, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. She also submitted that pW. 1 is the de facto comprainant and he has turned hostire before the triar court and that the matter is posted for 313 Cr.p.C., examination. She further submitted that the petitioner and the victim are leading a newly wedded life and in the circumstances, the petitioner attending the court may hamper the relationship and may cause disputes in their family life. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional public prosecutor has submitted that admittedry' the victim is a minor and thus, even if it is a consensuar relationship, it would be an offence committed by the petitioner He further submitted that not only the evidence of family members. but the prosecution could record the statement of house owner to prove the offence against the petitioner. He therefore, prayecl to dismiss the petition

5. Perused the record \ \ J

6. The record discloses that the father of thtl examined as PW.1 before the trial court' He turned t-t that the accused is his son-in-law and he does nc ETO,J Crl.P, No-1121o12025 victim was stile stating I know the contents of the complaint A perusal of the statement cf LW.1-victim available in the record shows that she went willirLt ly with the petitioner, in fact, she herself has called the petitioner t> r phone and has invited him to take her' Thereafter, they went an<l married and stayed in a rented house. Though the learned Adqi ional Public Prosecutor contends that the marriage with a minor 11 1 itself is an offence and admittedly, performing the marriage of a t rinor itself is an offence under the Child fvlarriage Act' in the pres't nt case, the deposition of the de facto complainant itself shows thil he does not know the contents of the complaint and that his dall hter is living separately with the petitioner. When the de factrt complainant himself has turned hoslile, nothing remains for the trial court to prove the offence against the petitioner' 7 . A perusal of the e-courts status discloses hat the case before the trial court is disposed of on 18.1 1.2025, rcquitting the accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner has e lso submitted the same 4 ETO J C.LP No 1t21ot 2o;s

8. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed .as infructuous Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P.PONAM KRISHNA A SISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPYII ECTION OFFICER To, 1 Thefast Tlack speciar Judge for Triar and Disposar of RApE and pocso Act Cases RangaReddy District at Rajendranalar

2. The Station House Officer, Narsingi (CyB), Narsingi, Cyberabad Diskict 3 One CC to SRI KOTHA MANASA REDDy Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

5. Two CD Copies VM/PR HIGH COURT DATED: 2011.1l,202s ORDER CRLP.No.1 121 of 2025 I I I I Ait o 0 t tu it26 * ::-. -. . _..- DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS g