The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated h the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in SC.POCSO No.5712021 on the file of the Special Court for the Trial of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act Case-cum-Xll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 1OF 2023 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 including appearance of the Petitioners in SC.POCSO No.5712O21 on the file of the Special Court for the Trial of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act Case-cum-Xll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, during the pendency of Criminal petition and pass l.A. NO: 2OF 2024 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing re Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argu r ents of Sri ABDUL NISSAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. M. Vivel ananda Reddy the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Responc ent No.1. and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER INTTIE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8467 of 2023 Date:29.12.2025 Between: Dinesh Chand Gupta and another AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Pubtic Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another. ...Petitioners ...Respondents Order This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in SC.POCSO No.57 of 2021 on the file of the Special Court for the Trial of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act Case-cum-Xll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos'1 and 2, for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A) and (c) and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections I I r/w 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences'Act,2012 (for short 'POCSO Act')' 2

2. Heard Mr.P.Animi Reddy, leamed coutlr, I representing Mr.Abdul Nissar, learned counsel for the 1 :titioners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, leamed Assistant Publi: Prosecutor for respondent No. I -State.

3. Leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted hat pursuant to the order dated 27.01 .2025, the SHO, P.S. Shahinay rthgunj, served notice to the victim/respondent No.2. The victim rer r ived the notice on 18.06.2025. and proof of service was filed bel rre this Court Despite service of notice, respondent No.2 has not hosen to enter appearance

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioners subrr tted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further subrr ined that as on the date of the alleged offence, the victim was r maj or and to substantiate the said fact the petitioners have filed a rirth certificate issued by the GHMC dated25.07.2020. According -, the said birth cerlificate, the ",ictim was bom on 03.04.2002 and ther :lbre she was a major. Hence, the ingredients of Sections 354(4)(: and 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC are not attracted against te petitioners 3 Therefore, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse ofprocess of law.

5. Per contra, leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that as on the date of the alleged offence, the victirn was a minor, and the prosecution filed the final report enclosing the bonafide certificate issued by the concemed school dated 24.05.2004. Whether the victim is a major or minor, and whether the bonafide certificate produced by the prosecution or the birth certificate relied upon by the petitioners is genuine or not are disputed questions of fact and the same have to be adjudicated by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial. On the basis of the said documents, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of proceedings under Sections lI rlw 12 of the POCSO Act. Insofar as the other offences are concemed, there are specific allegations against the petitioners in the final report. Hence, they are not entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of LWs. I te{under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., filed the final report. Upon perusal of the statements of the witnesses and the final report it I 4 reveals that there are specific allegations leveli, d against the petitioners, and the witnesses have stated the role of the petitioners. Whether the petitioners have committed the offences rr not has to be revealed during the course of trial and the same carut() be adjudicated at this stage

7. Insofar as the contention raised by the leamec :ounsel for the petitioners that the victim was a ma,or as on the da-r of the alleged offlence, relying upon the birth certificate issued t y the CHMC, whereas, the prosecution relies upon the bonafide cen i tcate issued by the concemed school to contend that the victim was a ninor. Whether the documents produced by the petitioners or the r rosecution are genuine or not and r.r'hether the victim was a minor cr major, have to be adjudicated by the trial Court after a full-fledged b i rl. The vatidity of such documents cannot be adjudicated ln prc t eedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not f nd any ground to quash the proceedings while exercising the powers r onferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 5

9. After dictating the order, leamed counsel for petitioners requested this Court to dispense with the presence of the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 before the trial Court'

10. Taking into the consideration the above submission' the presence of the petitioners/accused Nos' 1 and 2 in S C'POCSO'No'57 of 2O2l ,on the file of the Special Court for the Trial of the Protection ofChildrenfromsexualoffences(PoCSo)ActCase-cum-Xll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad' is dispensed with, subject to the condition that they shatt be represented through their counsel on each and every date ofhearing. lf the presence of the petitioners is required, they shall appear before the trial Court' In case of their non-appearance on the specific date fixed by the trial Court lor their appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law' I 1. Subject to the above directions' the Criminal Petition IS disposed of. Miscellaneous aPPlications, pending if anY , shall stand closed. (r, Sd/. U. SUDHA A S TANT REGIS ECTION OFFICER 1 . The Special Court for the Trial of the Protection of Offences (POCSO) Act Cage-cum-Xll Additional at Hyderabad, Hyderabad District 2. The I Additional Chief Metropolita n Sessions Judge a tro olitan Sessions Judge m Sexual ampally, Hyderabad District,

3. The SHO Shainayathgunj Police Station, Hyderabad District.

4. One CC to SRt. ABDUL NTSSAR Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for th: State of Telangana 6. Two CD Copies at Hyderabad [OUT]. M HIGH COURT DATED:2911212025 CRLP.No.8467 ot 2023 ..: . () ( tHE S ia o o t Jt ( I JAN 2026 2 a'l -t- .1';r.- -,-t;- ]< -..:-:-j; / CRIMINAL PEITITION IS DISPOSED OF. T

9.t

2.t