The High Court · 2025

SRI' AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY CounselfortheRespondentNo.l:ASSISTANTPUBLICPROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER .-...r,++.*.Y --_7 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKq. YARA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.463 OF 2025 ORDER Heard lir i M A.1al liumar. Icarned cor' i- sr:l lor tl-re petilront'r/accltsccl No.1 and ll'rc lealrrrc rl '\ssistant revt ston Public Prosecr-ttt,t for resporlclent SLate. Peruscd titc rercord

2. This Criminal Revision Case is prclerred b' the revision petitioner / act: r-t st'd No. i :rggricved b1' the order 'ri tht: Iearned XII Additional S,'ssiot-ts ,Judge lor- trial of cases 'rnclr:r POCSO Act, Hvderabacl. in Crl.M.P.No.'103 of '2023 in Sr" PCS No 267 of 2021, datr:d 2O.05.2025, s'herein. the sairl petition filed under Sectiot.t 227 oi Cr.P.C seekir-rg disc'trrrge of the petitioner / acr- rr srercl No.2 [rorn the offences trrtrlcr Sections 366-A, 376(2i (i) (tr) IPC :tncl Scction 5 (t) r/rt Sr ctiorr 6 of the POCSO Act, 201 2 has been clisrnissed

3. The brief facts of thc case are that tlrc de facto complainant lodged a complaint before tl e police on 27.12.2O2O zrllegir-rg that he has thrce chiidrer ancl on that day, when hc- rcturned horne, his brother Kish i I asked him to check whether his second daughter aged 15 '' e ars studying I I 2 \ in Class X is at home. On checking the same, it is learned that she is at his elder srster's house by name Rama and from there, his daughter u'as sent to home from her house. His daughter did not come homc and later he came to kno$' that his second sister Laxmi's son Rajesh has taken his daughter aiong nith him and performed marriage. In that context, thc Police, Falaknuma registered a case in Crime No.446 of 2O2O for the offence under Section 363 of IPC ald after investigation, laid charge sheet for the offences 366 (A), 376(2\ (i) (n) IPC and Section 6 r/n,5 (1)of POCSO Act,2Ol2.

4. Learned counsel for thc revision petitioner contended that the petitioner/ accused No.2 has no role in commission of alleged offences but her nam e has been included as she is sister of accused No.1. There are no overt acts attributed to the petitioner except that she supplied a cell phone to accused No,l to talk to the victim girl but the victim girl has voluntarily stayed with accused No.l. The victim girl never objected and never complained against accused No.l. The accused No.1 dropped the vrctim girl at her house on 2A.1,2.2O2O. It is also alleged that the petitioner is implicated for the purpose of extorting money from accused No.1. The t. :r=+i -;Eq :r-4 I ! I i i I t I claimecl that r'r'hen Lhere are no groul c s petittoner any charge, she rs entitled to be discharged fronr the alleged to frame offence s

5. The learnecl Trial Court upol-r considering t'l': version of the counsel for the petitioner and tl-re lclrr:red Public Prosecutorhasdismissedthepetition.Aggrieveclbythesame, the present Criminai Revision Case is filcd' In grounds of revision, the facts and even tr; Ieading to 6. lodging of the complaint under POCSO Act r re re stated' Further, it is pleaded that the petitioncr herein ir; not liabie to beprosecuted.underSections366-A,376(2)(i(n)lPCarrd Section 5 (I) r/r,v Section 6 charge sheet reveals that of the POCSO At:t. 12O12 as the the petitioner ts tn no \{'aJr concernedwiththeoffencescommittcdbl'ac::usedNol According to the statements of u'itnesses' no ofiencc is made out against the petitioner ancl therefore' she is entit-led to be clischarged. The statement of the victim hersr:if does not disclose any overt act against the petitioner hert:il-l except that she supplied. a cell phone to facilitate conversaLion between accusecl No.l and the victim Further' it is plezrded that 1 I I 4 according to the statement of LW3, the victim girl followed accused No. t voluntarily and staved u,ith him by travelling on motor bike and she never made any objection or complaint and was finally dropped at her home. The delay in lodging of FIR is also one of the ground for seeking disch:rrge o[ the petitioner apart lrom the fact that there is no materia-l evidence to connect the petitioner rvith the offences alleged

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the statement of victim alleging that there are no or,ert acts that carl be attributed to the petitioner herein and that there was consensus betu.een the victim ald accused No.1.

8. Whereas learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the revision cas: alieging that the statements of witnesses reveal that it is the petitioner herein who not only halded over the ceil phone to facilitate conversation between accused No.l and the victim but also informed the victim that her brother (accused No.1) likes her and intends to marry her. It is with the active participation of the petitioner that the accused No.1 was able to commit the offences against the victim Fry / I \ 'i J : I I i t i t , . I i ) g. A pcrusal of the victim's stertement recorrlr:cl shorvs that in Lhe 1'ear 2018, the victim $'ent to the horr';e' of accused No.l r,r'hen his lather died. After 10 da-vs of saic .ncident, the pe titioner herein came and told the victim tha t her brother accused No. 1 loved her and intends to marr-\' r:r ernd hc is not taking food properly. Two months later, tl-re victim agreed to the proposal brought by the petitioner hererrr ar-rd received the cell phone over which accused No.1 talked to the victim' In November , 2olg, the petitioner first came tt Lhe house of the victim ancl took the victim to her house atLcl frotn there, she left. The accused No. 1 by blackmailing ti Le victin'r n'ith suicide has cornmitted sexual assault. Likeu ls':, u'henever, victim was tzrken to the house of petitioner, thc trccused No l \ I B assaulted the victim. Thereafter, on 27 .12.2021.), thc accused No.1 ticd pasuputhadu and took a\ ray the victirn and finalll' brought her back and left her on 28.12.2020 at her house This entire sequence shows that the petitioner 'ras a role in facilitating her brother accused No- 1 to r:onmit offence against the '"'ictim. The guilt or the innocence ol'l-he petitioner can be ascertarned after full-fledged tria-l. At t ris stage' it is unu,arranted to discharge the petitioner/ accuscci No 2 for the \ \ 6 offences alieged. There are no merits in the revision case aIrd the same is liable to be clismissed I0. In the result, this Crrminal Revision Casc is dismissed Asa sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitiorls, if an1', pending in the Criminal Revisior-r Case shall sl-and closed' SD/-P.CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Hyderabad. L The Xll Additional Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, 2. One CC to Sri. Aiay Kumar Madisetty Advocate [OPUC] - 5 Two CCs to Pubiic'Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT] 4 Two CD Copies. YJR /s^ HIGH COURT DATED:1511012025 ORDER CRLRC.No.463 ot 2025 ( \ r '\. 'i\ ) 1E i\J[lj I0fr ''r,]/ * -J- - \:) CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DISMISIJED. @