The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Through Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Rep !y its "High Court- for the State of Telangana, High Court, Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad.

2. B Muktha, D/o. B. Prahalad, Aged 19 years, Rio H.No. 1-6-159, Road No 39, Phanigrri Colony, Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad. ... Res Po nde nUC om P la ina nt Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in S.c. POCSO No. 93 of 2024 on the file of the court of the Fast Track special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in so far as, the Petitioner/A3 is concerned. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under'section 482 of Cr.P .C 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 including the presence of the Petitioner in s.c. Pocso No. 93 of 2024 on the file of the court of the Fast Track special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in so far as, the Petitioner/A3 is concerned during the pendency of the above Quash Petition -,7 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusitr: the Memorandum of Grounds of ()riminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mahadev r\nyarambhatla, Advocate for th: Petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandara Reddy, Additional Public Prc secutor on behalf of the Responden. No.1 and of Sri Maram Anil Kumirr Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7576 of 2024 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against l'rim in S.C.POCSO No 93 of 2024 on the file of the learned Fast Track Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, arising out of Crime No.688 of 2022 of P.S. Chaitanyapuri. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 9 of The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 5(1) r/w 6 POCSO Act,2O12.

02. Heard Mr. A.[\4ahadev, learned counsel for the petitioner, lVlr [/.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additlonal Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State and [/r.Maram Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03. The allegation against the petitioner-accused No.3 is that on

27.11.2020, he contacted the marriage with respondent No.2 who was minor and led a marital life with her for about 25 days. Thereafter, respondent No.2 quarreled with the petitioner-accused No.3 and went to her parents'house. Later, the petitioner-accused No.3 came to know that 2 respondent No.2 was a minor, aged about 15 years, anrj accordingly, he applied for divorce

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submlts that :he petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the c:rse. lt is further contended that the marriage of petitioner with respc,rrdent No.2 was solemnized on ')-7 .11.2020 in accordance with the llindu rites and customs and it was an arranged and inter caste marria(lr-' At the time of marriage, the p,etitioner and his parents were inf,'.,rmed that the respondent No.2 was more than 18 years of age. Hc,wever, after the marriage, the res;pondent No.2 started asserting that rts on the date of marriage, she dicl not complete 1B years of age and wars a minor. Thus, having made the petitioner to believe that she was a major, the respondent No.2 married him fraudulently misrepresenlir.rg her age. The marriage between the petitioner and responderrl No.2 is not consummated, as the respondent No.2 was not willing fcr consummation. Further, after ther marriage, the respondent No.2 hard ) stayed with the petitioner for abcut 25 days, that too at intervals and no1 continuously. lt is further contended that the petitioner was granted divorce with the respondent No.ll. ln the absence of any allegation; that there was aggravated penetrative sexual assault, the ingredients of the offences charged against the petitioner are not atkacted. \\/hile seeking for 3 quashment of the criminal proceedings relied upon a decision in Balveer Singh v. State of lJttarakhandl wherein it was held that: "From the language of Section g, it transpires that to constitute an offence under Section g of the Act accused must have knowtedge that he is getting married with a child. There is nothing on record to suggesl that appellant was having knowledge or any reason to believe that prosecutrix was child. Therefore, offence under Section g of the Act rs a/so not made out. It/loreover, appellant was not charged under Section 9 of the Act, nor such a question was asked to him white recording his statements under Section 313 of the Code of Crimin al procedu re.,'

05. on the other hand, the rearned Additionar pubric prosecutor as weil as learned counser for respondent No.2 contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. Ail the ailegations reveiled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of triar, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

06. Having regard to the submissions made by the rearned counser for both sides, and on perusar of the material record, it is apparent that the marriage of the respondent No.2 was performed by her parents with the petitioner-accused No.3 on 27.11.2020 in the presence of their elders and well-wishers and the respondent No.2 is a second wife to the petitioner-accused No.3. After two months, due to some family disputes, 1 Criminat Appeal No.212 of 2013 of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital 4 the respondent Nrt.2 was staying along with her parents Thereafter, the petitioner-accuserl No.3 applied for divorce and the leartted Family court Judge, Rangarecdy District at LB Nagar granted divc'ce vide Order dated 09.10 2023 passed in F C.O.P.No.376 of 2022.

07. lt is the case of the petitioner-accused No.3 tnat he had no knowledge that the respondent No.2 is a minor at the lime of marriage. Admittedly, it is an arranged married and the marriage rvas performed by the parents of th<: respondent No.2 in the presence of e I'lers ln order to constitute the offt>nce under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child lt/larriage Act, 2006, the pr:titioner-accused No.3 must have knourledge that he is getting married lvith a child. There is nothing on reco r1 to suggest that the petitioner-acr;used No.3 had knowledge or any reas;on to believe that the respondent No.2 was child, prior to the marriag<: Therefore, the offence under sr:ction 9 of the Prohibition of child Mar-iage Act,2006, is not made out.

08. A careful scrutiny of the entire contents of llre charge sheet discloses that nrajor allegations are levelled against tri: accused Nos.1 and2,whoallegedlyhadphysicalrelationshipwiththe.respondentNo.2. Apparently, the respondent No.2 had a baby boy' '\ccording to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the marriage was not consummated and the respordent No.2 stayed with the petitioner.accused No.3 for i r i ! i I i i I I : t I I .. -d*titBtsr+:.: - B/ ,! i l;ea.i. * "/ ' r':r:tt:r:r'-,: r.: -r- 5 about 25 days and that too at intervals and not continuously. lt is evident from the statement of brother of the respondent No.2 that the respondent No.2 stated that the accused Nos.'l and 2 are responsible for her pregnancy. There is no averment in the charge sheet that the petitioner- accused No.3 had physical relationship with the respondent No.2, much less aggravated sexual penetration. Therefore, the required essential ingredients to constitute the offences under Section 9 of The Prohibition of Child fi/larriage Act,2006 and Section 5(1) r/w 6 POCSO Act,2012, are not made out. ln the said circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3 amounts to abuse of process of the law and the same are liable to be quashed.

09. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3 in S.C.POCSO No.93 of 2024 on the file of the learned Fast Track Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, arising out of Crime No 688 o'f 2A22 of P.S. Chaitanyapuri Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.PRATHIMA PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To

1. The Judge for_ Expedrtious Trial and Disposal of Rape and pOCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-lv Additional Junior Civit Judge, L.B.Nagar, Rachakonda. iI

3.TheStationl-louseofficer,ChaitanyapuriPoliceStatiorlRachakonda. 4. One CC to Sri. IVahadev Anyarambhatla, Advocate [Ot) JC] 5. One CC to Sri lrlaram Anil Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to l)ublic Prosecutor, High court for the state rf Telangana. [oUT] 7. Two CD Copies. YJR /PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2510912025 t ORDER CRLP.No.75'76 of 2024 I ) Iq-' c( ,( t-\' a J J 1-,| 1tr 0tT ?ffi I i.r tr- a'1' CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED. \D \%