FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY^'? IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV, LSS? \ ^n TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE \\ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2251 OF 2022 Between: 1. Gurindapalli Jayaprakash, S/o Punnaiah, aged about 27 years, R/o D.No. 4-57/6, Pedagadelaparru Village, Tsunduru Mandal,Guntur District. 2. Gurindapalli Ravi Teja, S/o Punnaiah, aged about 29 years, R/o D.No. 4-57/6, Pedagadelaparru Village, Tsunduru Mandal,Guntur District. 3. Gurindapalli Madhavi, W/o Punnaiah, aged about 50 years, R/o D.No. 4-57/6, Pedagadelaparru Village, Tsunduru Mandal,Guntur District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 2. Vemavarapu Jessy, D/o John Prakash, aged about 22 years, R/o 12th Lane, A.T. Agraharam, Guntur Town, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court To quash the proceedings in SC. No. 257/2020 for the offence punishable Under Section 312, 376, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 5(i), 5(m), 5(n) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 which is pending before the Honourable I Additional District Sessions Judge and Special Court for Speedy Trial of offences under POCSO Act, 2012, Guntur, Guntur District. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay arrest of the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 and also stay in all the proceedings in SC. No. 257/2020 for the offence punishable Under Section 312, ‘ 5(i), 5(m), 5(n) r/w 6 of Protection of Children 2012 which is pending before the Honourable 376, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section j from Sexual Offences Act, I Additional District Sessions Judge and Special Court for Speedy Trial of offences under POCSO Act 2012, Guntur, Guntur District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum J and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Srinivasa Rao Narra .Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following Order: of Grounds of Criminal Petition APHC010130512022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2251/2022 Between: Gurindapalli Jayaprakash and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED{S) AND .„RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the petitioner/accused(S): 1 .SRINIVASA RAO NARRA Counsel for the Respondent/compIainant{S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed, by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in S.C.No.257 of 2021 the file of I Additional District Sessions Judge and Special Court for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, 2012, Guntur, Guntur District, for the offence punishable under Sections 312, 376, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 5(i), 5(m), 5(n) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesAct, 2012. on 2. Heard Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitionersand Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Notice is served on respondent No.2. None appeared for the respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners and respondent No. 2 are distant relatives. The alleged incident is said to have taken place in the year 2011-2012. The present case was lodged on 25.08.2020. Learned counsel would submit that it was lodged only to create jurisdiction in Arundelpet after a long delay, where no part of the cause of action arose. Learned counsel would further submit that, as on the date of the incident, i.e., 14.11.2012, the 1®^ petitioner was 17 years old and was a minor according to the SSC certificate. The investigating officer did not consider these aspects but made the 1®‘ petitioner to go through the procedures like a normal offender. Learned counsel would further submit that the POCSO Act 3 came into force on 14.11.2012, whereas the alleged incident occurred on 15.04.2011. At the time of the incident, the POCSO Act was not in force. Learned counsel would further submit that the charge sheet was filed without clarifying that the victim woman did not choose to appear for the medical examination, which is necessary, as the 1st petitioner is facing allegations for offences punishable under Section 312, 376, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 5(i) 5(m), 5(n) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesAct, 2012. The consequences of the alleged offences are very serious; despite this, the victim woman was reluctant to submit herself to the medical examination. Learned counsel would submit that this itself speaks about the false nature of the case lodged against the 1®* petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that since the 1®' petitioner became a government employee in 2019, this case has been lodged as an arm twist to force the 1®* petitioner to comply with the victim woman's terms. Learned counsel would further submit that there has been an abnormal delay in bringing the matter to court, and the delay is not supported by any reason. Learned counsel would finally submit that the allegations made against the 1®' petitioner in the complaint are vague and without any details. Learned counsel would submit that continuing criminal proceedings against the 1®* petitioner is a mere abuse of the process of law. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposing the petition, would submit that the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant clearly direct the allegations against the 1®^ petitioner, which attract the offences under Sections 312, 376, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 5(i), 5(m), 5(n) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court that the 1®' petitioner was a minor at the time of the incident. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would finally submit that this is not a fit case for quashing and prays for the dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the contents of the information given to the police, on which the FIR was lodged, it appears that the alleged incident occurred on 15.04.2011. The information is vague as to how long the alleged relationship between the victim woman and the 1®^ petitioner continued. The information is also devoid of details regarding when the victim became pregnant. It is pertinent to note that, as on the date of the alleged incident, the victim woman was unmarried. Under those circumstances, becoming pregnant without marriage is a serious matter, which has a significant impact, even though the complaint is silent about these aspects. As can be seen from the FIR, it was lodged after eight (8) years, and the reason for the delay remains unaddressed. It has been represented across the bench that both the 1®‘ petitioner and the victim woman have married separately. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the 1st petitioner, except for the oral statement of the victim woman, which is not supported by any medical evidence, continuing criminal proceedings against the 1®^ petitioner after nine years, stating that the 1®* petitioner abused her sexually to the extent that it attracts offences under Section 312, 376, 506 r/w 34 IPC and 5 Section 5(i), 5(m), 5(n) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual m Offences Act, 2012, cannot be justified. Furthermore, the SSC certificate of the petitioner, placed before this Court, shows that he was 17 years old at the time of the incident. In the absence of any supporting material to substantiate the victim woman's claims, the information submitted to the police lacks substance. In that view, the petition is liable to be allowed. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed. 7. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. / SD/- P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SE^TI^N^FICER //TRUE COPY// To, . The I Additional District Sessions Judge And Special Trial Of POCSO ACT,CHILD & AMI COURT, Guntur. 2. One CC to Sri. Srinivasa Rao Narra, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies 1 YM PRK HIGH COURT DATED;24/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.2251 of 2022 ^2UUL2(I25 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED (