The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT No.'t

2. Dr. P.Chandra Shekar, S/o. Late P. Janardhan, Aged about 58 years, Occ l/c. District, tt/edical and Health Officer and lvlember Secretary, Convener, District Level lvlulti Member Appropriate Authority, PCand PNDT Act, Kamareddy O/o. D[\t'land HO at Kamareddy ...DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT No.2 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 in Proceedings in CC.No.44 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial [Vlagistrate of First Class at Kamareddy and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. l.A. NO: 2OF 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 pleased to stay of all further Proceedings in CC.No.44 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kamareddy, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing he lr/emorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argunr, nts of Sri RApoLU BHASKAR ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the SR JITHENDER RAO vEERAIVALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of le Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER INTHE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLI' SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.16723 of 2025 DATE: 15.12.2025 Between : Vittam Praveen Kumar The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and another AND ....Petitioner ....Respondents : ORDER: This criminal petition has becn filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 seeking to quash the procecdings in C.C.No.44 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of [irst Class, Kamareddy, for the offences under Sections 3(3), 3.A, 6(b)(c) and 23(1)(2) of the Pre- conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short, 'the PCPNDT Act') and Rules 6(6) and 8 of the Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition and Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the PCPNDT Rules') 2

2. Heard Mr.Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel i r the petitioner, and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla. leamed A < ditional public Prosecutor appearing for the respondenl No. I

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted .l aL the petitioner has ,ot co,rmitted thc offe,ces and he was falsely inplicatcd in the plesent crime based upon the conf'essional statem,t rt given by the othcr accused. There are no allegations, rnuch less sp::i{ic allegations, ler"elled against the petitioner to attract the ingredients Ibr the offences under Sections 3(.3), 34, 6(b)(c) and 23(L)(2) of rhe t,r IPNDT Act and Rules 6(6) and 8 of the pCpNDT of the Rul :s. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitior t r amounts to a clear abuse ofthe process of law.

4. Per contra. leamed Additional public prosecr-rt I . submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitic ner. He fufther submitted that the ingredients for the offences undtrr Sections 3(3), 3a, 6@)(c) and 23(1)(s) of the pCpNDT Acr and Ru r s 6(6) and 8 of the PCPND I Rules are attracted to the petitioner. I.ht: grounds, which are raised by the petitioner, have to be adjudicared by the trial Courr , the PCPNDT Rules are attracted to the petitioner. The grounds, which are raised by the petitioner, have to be adjudicated by the trial Court after futl-fledged trial. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No .44 of 2025

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the complaint, and final report, it clearly reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the ingredients lor the ofl'ences under Sections 3(3), 3A, 6(bXc) and 23(l)(s) of the PCPNDT Act and Rules 6(6) and 8 of the PCPNDT Rules. The contentions and grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are disputed facts and the same have to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Couft after full-fledged trial and the same cannot be adjudicated ln the present criminal petition Hence, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petltloner.

6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of the petitioner/accused NoJ- in C,C.No.44 of 2025 is dispensed with, subject to the condition that he shall be 4 represented through his counsel on each and every ( ate of hearing lf the presence of the petitioner is required, he shal appear before the trial Court. ln case of his non-appearance on tt e specific datc fixcd by the tlial Court for his appearance, the trial I ourl is entitled to proceed with the Inatter, in accordancc with lau, Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed \ sd/- M. NAGAMANT qs STANT REGtSTRAg.' ,TRUE COPY// \SECT|ON OFFTCER To, -l . The Judicial lvlagistrate of First Class at Kamared\ 2. fwo CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court 3. One CC to SRt. RAPOLU BHASKAR Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies Telangana [OUT] fo r' .he State of DDN/kam HIGH COURT DATED:1 511212025 4h i .ks ,(. { '-\. '( r' \. ,: I I t'! (.: .,:7 I crl H ORDER CRLP.No.16723 of 2025 Lt- s CRIMINAL PETITIOIN IS DISMISSED I a /. 3 3