The High Court · 2025

Marriguda, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. a Nimma Anusha, Dio. Sreedhar Reddy, Aged about 16 years, Occ. Student, R/o. Khudabakshpally Vill, Mandal, Marriguda, Dist, Nalgonda, Telangana State - 505462. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT 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 proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused in FIR No. 3612021, registered at Marriguda Police Station, and the subsequent proceedings in SC.POCSOl4l2023 under Section 366 read with Section 109 of the IPC and Section 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act,2012, against A2 and ,A3 (Petitioners). l.A. NO: 2 OF 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 pleased to Stay of all further proceedings against, the petitioners/accused in Crime No. 3612021 dated 17.4.2021 on the file of Marriguda Police Station and the subsequent proceedings in SC POCSO 1412023 on the file of the Court of the Judicial District Sessions Judge, at Nalgonda pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition. / This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the I\,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurlents of Sri VIJAY KUMAR BAlRl, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. M VIVI:IGNANDA REDDY. Assistant Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent No.1 none appeared for Respondent no.2 The Court made the following: ORDER wffi7'.",.,/ / THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15589 of2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is f-rled seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 and 3 in S.C.POCSO.No.4 of 2023 on the hle of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 344 and 376(2)(N) and 109 of IPC and Section 5(L) read rvith 6 and 17 ot POCSO Act,2Ol2.

2. The brief facts of the case are that ort 17 .O4 .2021 the de facto complainant, lodged a written complaint stating that he has two sons and one daughter. His daughter,. was studying in gth standard at Angels School, Ibrahimpatnam, and was attending online classes from home due to the COVID- 19 pandemic. On the night ol 15.04.2021, after having dinner, he, along with his wife and children, went to sleep at their house. In the early hours of

16.04.2021, at about O4:00 AM, he woke up and found that his daughter was missing. Despite searching for her in and around their locality ald at relatives' houses, she could not be found. The complainant expressed suspicion over one Madagoni Shiva, a nearby resident, stating that he had previously taken the girl away 2 sKs,J Cr.I.No.156a9 of 2024 n in the name of love and later returned her. He rlso expressed suspicion over family members of the said Shivrr, his parents VenkataizLh ancl Chandrakala, his brothers S-isaialam and Shivalingam, his e [der sister Parvathamma, and his grandmother Saramma.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police rcgi stcreri the case in Crime No.36 of 2021 of Marriguda Police Statior. Nalgonda, for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 344 anJ 376(2)(N) and 1O9 of IPC and Section 5(L) read with 6 and 17 o j pQQ$g 461, 2Ol2 and after completion of invesligation, they fileC chzrrge shcet, vide S.C.POCSO.No.4 of 2023, before the learncd District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. Aggrieved therebv, the petitioners / accused Nos.2 and 3 hled the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against them.

4. Heard Sri B. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as u.ell as Sri M. Vivckanancla Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State. Though notice served uprtn respondcnt No.2, none appeared on her behalf. I I

5. Learned counsel for lhe pe titioners submitte d that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence as SKS,J Crl.P.No.156E9 of 2024 alleged and that the complaint was hled by respondent No.2 with bad intention, only to harass the petitioners and force them into a monetary settlement. He further submitted that there is no proper or legal evidence against the petitioners to supporL the charges and that even if the allegations are accepted as true, they do not make out any offence. He further submitted that the FIR and investigation do not show any clear or specihc role of the petitioners and that the allegations are vague and based only on assumptions, without any solid proof. The petitioners have not been accused of directly helping, instigating, or taking part in the alleged crime. They were named only because they are related to A- 1, not because of any wrongdoing.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the complaint has no specific claims against the petitioners and that the Investigating Officer clearly stated that there is no evidence against them and recommended that their names be removed from the case. In the hrst statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she made no mention of the petitioners. Only in a later statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. did she make vague and general claims, without saying what exactly they did. Therefore, he 4 SKS'J ( rt.P.I{o.15689 of 2024 prayed the Court to quash the proceedings againsr Lhe petitioners by allowing tlris criminal petition. 7 . On thr: other hand, learned Assistant Pt.l>lic l)rosecutor opposcd the submissions made by the learned :]()unsel for the petitioners stating that the petitioners are the par(- tts of accused No. I and that they had instigated accused No. I Lo <:ommit the offence. He further submitted that there are spt r:i[-rc allegations against the petitioners, which require a del. ilcd trial, and thereforc, at rhls stage, quashing of the proceedinsr does not arise. Hence, he pr:ryed the Court to dismiss the crimin:Ll p,etition.

8. In the light of the submissions made by LoLh r.hc learned counsel and upon careful perusal of the materir 1 available on record, it is noted that the sole allegation against thc pctitioners is that they allcgedly instigated accused No. I to cor r nit rhe alleged offence. However, a reading of the complaint fik,c ty thc de facto complainant does not disclose any specific or direct allegations against the petitioners. Even in the charge sh,:t.L fileti by the Invcstigating Ofhcer, no specihc overt acts or cle,ar role of the petitioners have bcen attributed so as to constitutc the ingredients of the olfenr:es alleged. Hence, this Court is,tl the considered opinion that the continuation of criminal proceedings zrgainst the * 5 sr(s,J Crl.P.}{o,15689 of 2024 petitioners, in the absence of any specific and credible allegations, is nothing but abuse of the process of law and the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioncrs / accused Nos.2 and 3 in S.C.POCSO.No.4 of 2023 on the [rle of the iearned District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGIST //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 5 I The Judicial District Sessions Judge. at Nalgonda. \ The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Devarakonda. The Station House Officer, Marriguda P.S., Nalgonda District. One CC to SRl. VIJAY KUMAR BAIRI Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana Two CD Copies MKN/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0210712025 I ORDER CRLP.No.15689 ot 2024 .4 ,t, t.) t) -)o \, t 'i ':/ \.' ?5 itti 1t6 I .t -- / I r' j .-r . .:-'-- ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1 lo ItolN-