The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner herein in SC POCSO No. 347 ol 2024 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of POCSO Act Cases-cum- Xll Additional lVletropolitan Sessions Judge: Nampally Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in SC POCSO No. 347 ol 2024 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of POCSO Act Cases-cum-Xll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad This Petitlo.t coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri s NAGESH REDDY ,Advocate for the petitioner and sri E.Ganesh Ass: pubric prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent no.1 and none appear for Respcndent no.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.1O59 OF 2o25 ORDER: The present criminal petition is liled by the petitioners/ accused Nos.S and 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in SC POCSO No.347 of 2024 on the Iile of the learned Special Judge for Trial of POCSO Act Cases-cum-Xll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampa11y, Hyderabad, arising out of FIR No.56 of 2024, daled

23.O2.2024 of Falaknuma Police Station.

2. Heard Sri S.Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Though notice is ordered, none appeared for the respondent No.2/de-facto complainant'

3. The brief averments of the charge-sheet filed against the accused are that the victim, who is the daughter of the de-facto complainant, born on 26.04.2O7O and was studying in 8fr standard at that particular point of time, allegedly developed relationship with accused No'1, who, despite knowing that she was a minor, on 22.02.2024 took her to Hotel New Sabharwal Palace, near Nampally Railway Station with the aid of accused Nos.2 and 3. Using a false ID arranged by accused No'2, accused No.3 allotted a room, where accused No.1 had sexual intercourse with the victim. On returning home at O2:00 AM, the victim revealed thr: incident to her parents, leading to registration of FIR No.56 of 2024 d,ated 23.02.2024 at pS Falaknuma. It is fr-rrther alleged in the charge_sheet that during investigation, accused No.4 stated that petitioners I arl .leased him the hotel in August, 2O2:l forRs. 1, 1 2,OOO/ _ per month ri'ith a deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-, informing him that it had no trade licr:nce. On this basis, the respondent/police laid charge- sheet for th,-- e11sr.., under Sections 366_.4, 326(1),109 IpC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the pocSO Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation of sexuar assaulr- is solery against accused No. i, v'ith abetment attributed to accused Nos'2 and 3' The petitioners had no operationar contror over the hotel at the relevant time and no nexus with the aileged offence. No specific or direct allegations have been made agains;t them. Section 366-,{ IpC, which pertains to inducement of a rninor for iliicit intercourse, is inapplicable as the charge_sheet does not aliege any inducement by the petitioners' The petitioners had no oontact with the victim and did r-rot pa.ticipare in the offence and hence, Section 376(1) IPC is not atfacted. The hotel had been leased out to accused No.4, and all operationzrl control had been relinquished by rhe petitioners. There is no mate.rial indicating their personal involvement. The charge- sheet does not disclose the ingredients necessary to inrarke Sections 3 and 4 of the pO.SO Act, as there is neither allegatron r or evidence of rY{tirliFYr, _;// ..,/ Page 3 ol6 penetrative sexual assault attributable to the petitioners. Abetment under the POCSO Act requires active instigation or facilitation, which is absent in this case. The record shows that accused Nos 2 and 3 arranged the false ID and facilitated the room allotment' The petitioners had no knowledge of the offence and did not abet its commission. The allegation regarding the absence of a trade licence does not amount to abetment in 1aw. Therefore, Section 1O9 IPC is also not applicable. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the continuation of the present criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that there is a complete absence of any material linking the petitioners to the commission of the alleged offence, either directly or indirectly. The petitioners have been unnecessarily roped into the case despite there being no specific allegations, operational involvement, or culpable intent attributed to them in the charge-sheet or supporting material' It is further contended that subjecting the petitioners to the rigour of a criminal trial, in the absence of prima facie evidence, would not only serve no purpose in the ends of justice but would also result in unwarranted hardship, mental agony, and irreparable harm to their reputation. The proceedings, as they stand, are clearly vexatious and oppressive in nature, and if allowed to continue, would defeat the very Pase 4 of 6 .-- --; . ,' t13; t ' . =- i..t;r' \.1. ::ai. -, . ...i. ,:,.. i: \".. 1'.. purpose of the judicial process. Stating thus, learned counsel for the petitioner soeks to quash the present criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant public prosecutor submits that the charge-sheet discloses sufficient material warranting trial, and the petitioners' claim of non-involvement cannot be decided at this stage. The hotei, where the offence occurred, is owned by the petitioners and whether they had knowledge or abetted the offence is a matter of evidence, which must be examined duri.g tria1. where the allegations, on their face, disclose a cognizable offence, stifling a legitimate prosecution does not meet the ends of justice. The petitioners' rlefence can be raised during trial ancl quashing at this stage is uns,arranted. Section 366(A) of IpC is not charged against the petitioners. Stating thus, he sought to dismiss the present criminal petition.

6. Having, heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is e'ident that the petitioners are the o."r/ners of the hotel, where the zrlleged incident occurred and confess;ion statement of accused No.4 ,riscl0sed that the petitioners hacl reased out the hotel to him in the rnonth of August, 2023 for a rent of Rs.1,12,000/_ per month with er deposit of Rs.2,O0,OOO/-, informing h:im that it had no Page 5 of6 trade iicence' The above facts would demonstrate that as on the date of alleged offence i,e. on 22.02.2024 though the petitioners were the owners of the hoter, they rerinquished its management and they were alien with regard to the state of the affairs of the said hotel ln that view of the matter, knowredge of the aileged offence or its abetment cannot be attributable to the petitioners The record' prima-facie shows that except the ownership of the hotel' nothing is there to rope the petitioners in the array of accused' In the above factual scenario' it is pertinent to refer to the 7. findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in State of Haryana vs' Bhajan Lalr wherein it was held that where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima lacie constitute any offence or make out a case or where the aliegations are inherently against the accused' made with malicious intent' and have been improbable, vague, or instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance on the accused or to harass him due to personal or private grudge, such proceedings may be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure L I 1992 SupP (1) SCC 335 1 It Page 6 ot 6 \i.1*i -

8. wher the facts of the present case are teste(r on the touchstone of the lega.l pr.inciples laid down in the abovementioned decision, it becomes evident that the entire recitals of the charge_sheet, as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded during tne investigation, do not prima f:rcie disclose any specific allegations ag€rinst in respect of the offences for which they have been implicated and charge-sheered. Accordingly, the impugned procer:dings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. In view of the zLbove, this court is inclined to allow- the present criminal petition and quash the impugned proceedings as against the petitioners. the petitioners

9. ln the result, the present criminal petitior.r is alrowed and accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioners/ ilccused Nos.5 and 6 in SC POCSO No.347 of 2024 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of pocSo Act cases-cum-Xll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampalty, Hyderabad are hereby quashed. 10 Interlocurory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// I !ltrt sd/- N. sRtHAR| PUTY REGISTRAR DF I I t\,l- SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 \%, lh9 of Special Judge for Trial of POCSO Act Cases_cum_Xil Ad d it i o n a I rVl etro po I iia n s esi r o nl J, d g ;,-r,t.i; p;Tty H yd e ra bad The Station House Officer, police Station Falaknuma, Hyclerabad One CC to SRt. S NAGESH REDDY Advocate [OPUC] Two CC to SRl. pUBL|C PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUT] Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1 110912025 ORDER CRLP.No.1069 of 2025 -.'.-. 1 ; cn) I \ 0 4 c[I 2m5 (. .Ci:t, ,':1, )" CRLP IS ALLOWED 6cqtre{ L/1 Yr.-.- 11\toFc