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 Orders in Crl.M.P.No.13Ol2O25, dt.09.05.2025 on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judg! at Naiayanapet filed by the 2nd respondent seeking perm.ission to co-nduct a potency test to the petitioner in Crime No. 1012025 l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSQ praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of driminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the Orders in Cr|.M.P.No.13012025, dt.09.05.2025 on the file of the Prl District and Sessions Judgp at Narayanapet filed by the 2nd respondent seeking permission to conduct a potency test to the petitioner in Crime No. 1012025 and pending disposal of the Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MOGILI ANAVENI, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, the Addl. Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the ReLpondent No. 1 and None appeared for the Respondent No. 2 & 3. The Court made the following: ORDER ./' THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIiIMINAL PETITION No.5632 of 2O25 ORAL ORDEIT: This Cr-iminal Pe1-itior-r is iiled seeking the Court to quash the orrler dated 09.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2025 in ( rimc No. 1O ol 2025 by the lcarne d Pruncipal District anrl S:ssions .Judge, Narayanpet.

2. The bricl facts of thc case are that in Crinie No.1O ol' 2025 c:f Makt ral Police filed a petition seeking pe rmission to subject the accust'd to a potency test :rt thc District Headquarters Hospittrl, Narayanpe t, in connt:ctic n r,vith an offence registc red under Sectior-rs 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution allegecl that on 26-08- 2024 , the at:c' r sed provide d an intoxicated cool d L'ink to the complainant, u'l-ro u,as u,orking at Srinidhi Socicty, and subsequently raped her forcibly in a field alter t hreatening her. On the othcr hand, the accused {-rled counter zrlfidavit, asserting that the complainant had previously lodgcd multiple criminal cascs againsr I'rim ancl thal the current complaint was a retaliatrir-y action inteuded to counter such ploceedings. z SKS,J Crl.P.No.6632 of 2O25 It was also noted that this Court had granted anticipal-ory bail to the accused in Cr1.P.No.768 of 2025, wit]n dircctions to coopcrare with thc investigation. After hearing both sides and acknowlcdging the lack of rcpicsentation from thc accused during the hearing, the trial Court held that the potency test was a relevant lactor in thg investigation and that no prejudice u,ould be caused to the accused by undergoing thc tcst. Accordingty, the trial Court allowcd the petition, directing thc accuscd to appcar for thc poterlcy test and instructcd thc policc i,ruthorities to facilitatc his production bcfore thc conccrned hospital. Aggricvcd thereby, the prescnt criminal petition is filed.

3. Hcard Mrs. Mogili Anaveni, lcarned counsel appearing on bchalf of thc petitioncr as u,ell as Mr. M. Vivekananda Rcddy, learncd counsel appcaripg on behalf of thc respondent - Statc.

4. Learncd counsel for petitioner submitted that although the trial Court recorded that it had "heard both sides" on the date of hearing, the accused was, in fact, not hcard, as it is noted in the order that there was no -l .i' 3 sKs,J Crl. P.No.6632 of 2O25 represenlation on bchalf ol thc accused. Without :rflbrding at-l opportunitl' to thc accused to bc heard, the p':tition rvas allorved, u'hic r causecl prejudice to him. Therelorc, l're pral'ccl the Court to sct aside Lhe ortlcr of ll-rc trial Court lrlld remand the matter to thc trial Court with a clirection 1o provicle an opportunitl' t() the accused to presenl l'ris case'

5. On tht othcr hand, the lcarned Assistzrnt Publit: ProsccuLor slrbmilted Lhat lhe accusctl had alrt acil' hled zl counter affidavit stating his objections. Ilence, thc tlial Court, after considering the same, rigl-rLly disposed of thc petition bv granting pernLission lor the potcncy test. Therefore there is no need to interlcre rvith the order of lhc trial Corrrt, atrd thc criminal peliL on is liable to bc dismisscd.

6. ln light of the submissions macle by botl'r the leartred counsel and rlpon perusal ol the materiarl availabl': on record, it is evident that the accused u/as not granted an ol)portullitv to be heard at the time, arld [he trial Cour-t pr rtnittcd the prosecution t r subject him to a potency test 'I'h' rrefole, this Court deems it fit to grant an opportuniLy to presct rl his case' 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6632 of 2025 r;.:_e#

7. [n view o[ the above, thip Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 09.O5.2O25 passed in Cr[.M.P.No. l3O of 2025 in Crime No.1O o[ 2025 tty thc learned Principal District and Sessions Judgc, Narayanpet. Further, thc matter is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to afford an opportunity to bofh parties to present their submissions, and thereafter, to decide the peLition on merits in accorda ncr: with law. Miscellancous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. JAYASREE EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, -CC Station, NaraYanPet.

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Narayanpet' i ii;;6i;ii"; House officer, f,ilakthal, Mafaboobnagar Rural Police to sht Ntoctt-t ANAVENI, Advocate toilql 3. o;e a. i*o ccs to th" public prosecutor, High court of Telangana at Hyclerabad 5. Two CD CoPies touTl SM/gh W HIGH COURT DATED: 2610612025 ORDER CRLP.No.6632 of 2025 .1',15- 'S lir c ( t r-) I ,, il 5 AUE 2025 ).t.:,, ,., - ''].y'/ t\.,-.-r -Z ALLOWING'I'HE CRIMINAL PETITION I I I I : :