APHC010496392024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7949/2024 Between: 1. PEDIREDDY SIRI VARDHAN REDDY, S/O PEDDIREDDY VEERA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO.90, F.NO.301, SRI MAHALAKSHMI RESIDENCY, TREND SET MEADOWS, MADHURA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NELAPADU, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. SHANTHI G, W/O.SURESH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. OCCUPATION- WOMEN POLICE CONSTABLE, CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, VIJAYAWADA R/O.CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, VIJAYAWADA, AP ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 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 FIR No.45/2022 on the file of Cyber Crime Police Station, Vijayawada dated 15.10.2022 u/s 67B of IT Act, 2000 against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in the interests of justice, and pas Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed, by the Petitioner/A.2, seeking to quash the Proceedings against him in Crime No.45 of 2022 on the file of Cyber Crime Police Station, Vijayawada registered for the offence punishable under Section 67-B of the IT Act - 2000-2008. Heard Sri N.Bharath Simha Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent/State. Perused the material on record. The case of the prosecution, as per the contents of the complaint, is as follows: “Prior to 15.102.022 at 14.00 hrs and reported at Cyber Crime PS on 15.10.2022 at 14.00 hrs. In which the complainant Kumari G.Santhi, Woman Police Constable of Cyber Crime PS, Vijayawada city has submitted analysis report of Cyber TIP Line Memo vide: C.No.1709/NCMEC/CID/2019, Dated 29.12.2021 OF Addl.Director General of Police, CID, Mangalagiri, AP stated that the suspected persons are Veera Reddy Peddireddy and Sobirala Venkata Srinivasulu has uploaded the child pomography through Gmail, Facebook and Youtube. The complainant is requested to take necessary action on concerned persons. Hence, FIR. 3 Learned counsel for Petitioner would submit that the ingredients of the offence lodged against the Petitioner, who is arrayed as A.2, is not attracting to the present facts of the case and prays for quashment of the proceedings against Petitioner/A.2. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent State would submit that the offences alleged against the Petitioners are grave and serious in nature and that the case is at crime stage and investigation is under progress. Further, Petitioner herein is aged about 15 years as on the date of commission of the offence and after registration of the case, the Police have followed the procedure contemplated under the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015 and the matter is pending before the Juvenile Justice Court and prays for dismissal of the Criminal Petition. A bare perusal of the material placed on record particularly the complaint, would go to show that the offence alleged against the Petitioner /A.2 is under Section 67-B of I T Act on the allegation of „child pornography‟. The case is at crime stage and is under investigation. The allegations raised against the Petitioner involve disputed factual aspects, which cannot be decided while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be revealed during trial. Further, a fair look at the allegations would disclose that the ingredients of IT Act attract against the Petitioner is the question of fact which will be decided by the Trial Court. This Court cannot conduct 4 a mini trial while deciding a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There are no merits in the contentions raised by the Petitioner to quash the proceedings against him. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that liberty may be granted to the Petitioner to recourse his remedies available in law before appropriate forum. In that view, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Petitioner is at liberty to recourse his remedies available under law if anything goes against him. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 13.08.2025 Mjl/* 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No. 7949 of 2024 13.08.2025 Mjl /*