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 piuur"o to call for relating to s.0 pocso No.141, of (crime No. 15 of 2O??_,lJ ill"iasigroa, Hyderabad i.c;, on the fite of the Honbte pocso Court. at HACA gh;van] HyderaUaO.t.C and'quash the same against the petitioneriaccused and .A. NO: 2OF 2024 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 ;i;r;; to stay all further proceedings appearance_of the Petitioner/ Accused in 5.C pocso No.1a0 ot lozq (crime No. 15 of 2023 of P's wdrasiguda' iyOeraOaO, T.G), on the file of the Hon'ble POCSO Court, at HACA Bhavan Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above criminal petition' i.. . k.t;x-- 'rtY!!.! This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminat Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bethi venkateswarlu, Advocate for the petitioner and the Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramafia Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No..l and of Mr. L. Ram Singh, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. The Court made the following: ORDER r 1 l i l I i I l I i I I i i i X.*. ,/,, THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Criminal Petition No.11980 ot2024 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tor short 'the BNSS') for quashment of proceedings in S.C. POCSO No.140 of 2024 on the file of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (for short, 'POCSO') Court' at HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad.

2. I have heard Mr.Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State and Mr. L.Ram Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

3. The petitioner is arrayed as accused in S.C. POCSO No. 140 of 2024 tor the offences under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) of the lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and Section 6 r/w s(t)(ii) of POCSO Acl,2012.

4. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No. 2, the father of the victim girl, lodged a complaint alleging that his minor daughter, P Swapna, went missing from her college on 12.06'-2023 and that the petitioner had abducted the missing girl. 2 NTR,] Crip 11980 2024 Based on these findings, the police charged the petitioner with offences of abduction and sexual assault. The petitioner, however, stated that the victim had voruntariry reft home. According to him, in the third week of December 2022, following an acquaintance between them, the victim left home and reached Siddipet bus stand, from where the petitioner took her to Vemulawada. There, they engaged in sexual intercourse, and she returned home the same day at about 7:30 p.m. A Again, in the second week of February and in March 2023, the victim went to Vemulawada, met the petitioner, and engaged in sexual relations. ln June 2023, a doctor confirmed that the victim was pregnant. Subsequently, the petitioner and the victim went to the Shivam Temple in Nizamabad and got married. ln her statement before the Bharosa Centre, the victim reiterated that the sexual relationship was consensual, that she had conceived prior to the marriage, and that a child was born to them on 13.09.2023. A DNA test confirmed that the petitioner is the biological father of the child. Despite this, upon the complaint of the victim's father, a case was registered under the protection of children from sexuar offences Act (POCSO) and. the child was shifted to Sishu Vihar Orphanage Centre at Madhuranagar, yousufguda, Hyderabad. 3 NTR,J Cdp 11980 2024

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the charges are unfounded, as the entire course of events arose from the voluntary and consensual relationship between the victim and the petitioner' lt was further submitted that the victim attained ma;ority on 03'06 2024' and the couple is now living together as legally wedded husband and wife. They have been blessed with a child, and the victim is presently pregnantforthesecondtime'Continuationofcriminalproceedings'itis argued, would cause irreparable harm to their marital life and the welfare of their children. Reliance was placed on the following judicial precedents: (i) Dihandapani v. State represented by the lnspector of Police (Crl.A. No.796of2022); (ii) Gian Singh v. State of Puniab (SLP (Crl ) No'8989 of 2010)' (lii) Maniunatha v state of Kamataka (Crl P'No 4658 of 2024); (iv) ){XXX v. Slafe of Kerala (Crl.M.C'No'2031 ol 2024); and (v) Skhembolang Suiting & Another v State of Meghalaya & Another (Ctl.P.No.63 of 2021).

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that by the date of the alleged occurrence, the petitioner was a minor, which led to the initiation of proceedings. However, both the petitioner and the victim have since attained majority, are living together, and had a child The .,,,u,. I l I i ; I i I ! I I I : r:'..i., 4 NTR,J Crlp 11980-2024 counter affidavit filed by the victim herself indicates that the relationship was consensual and that she does not wish to pursue the prosecution.

7. ln counter filed by Respondent No. 3/victim girl the victim confirmed the facts narrated by the petitioner, affirming that she is living happily with him, is pregnant for the second time, and that no offence has been committed. She prayed for the quashing of proceedings to ensure a stable marital life and secure the future of their children.

9. I have perused the materials on record The victim herself has filed a counter affidavit stating that she has no objection to the quashing of proceedings and seeks the same in the interest of preserving the marriage and the welfare of their chirdren.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. Sfate of punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 4g2 CrpC where the parties have seftled the matter and the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the process of raw, notwithstanding that certain offences are non-compoundable, provided the offence -does not have a serious impact on society at large. I t I I I [.. 5 MI&] crlp 11980-2024 r ll.Similarly,inParbatbhaiAahirv.StateofGujarat,(2017)9SCc 641, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that criminal cases arising from matrimonial disputes or consensual relationships' where the parties have subsequently married, may be quashed to secure the ends of justice. 12 ln Djhandapani v. Stafe Represented by the lnspector of Police' Court quashed rr Crl.A. No.796 of 2022, lhe Hon'ble Supreme proceedings under the POCSO Act where the voluntarily accompanied the accused, later married him' and they were prosecutrix had living together haPPilY

13. ln XXXX v. State of Kerala (Grl'M'C'No'2031 of 2024) and Manjunatha v. Sfafe of Karnataka (Crl'P'No'4658 of 2024) view has beentakenthat,inexceptionalcases,evenPOCsOchargesmaybe quashed when the factual matrix reveals a consensual relationship and the prosecutrix is now an adult seeking to continue marital life with the , t accused

14. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances' the consensual nature of the relationship, the subsequent valid marriage, the birth of a child, and the victim's categorical statement that she does not wish to prosecuie, this Court is satisfied that the continuation of It: l:- . 6 NTR.J Crlp_11980 2024 proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

15. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed_ The proceedings in S.C. POCSO No.'140 of 2024 on the fite of the POCSO Court, at HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad against the petitioner are hereby quashed. Further the Respondent No..l /prosecution is directed to take steps forthwith for handing over the chird of the petition6rr and respondent No.3/victim from Slshu Vihar Orphanage Centre at Madhuranagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/- K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFTC ER SEC To,

1. The Xll Additional [Vletropolitan Sessions Judge' Hyderabad' 2. The Station House oricliWarasiguoa Pol':: ?l1tlt" 3. Two CCs to the p'Orl" i'os"culo'] St'tt of Telangana' High Court Buildings' 4 ;;"';; 5. o;" CC to Sri L. Ram Singh, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies sriaettli venkateswarlu' Advocate IoPUC] at Hyderabad (OUT) Hvderabad' DL/gh \q L,' HIGH COURT DATED:13/08/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.1198O ol 2024 (\ 1t o I 'J '!:..O. \, ri \.3 \. 01 SEP zffi - ' -. ,/ '-/ " -," ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION qtos'[ \t--o <fq\* I I I I I I I j ; ! { I I I ; I I I I i ! l I I i t I