APHC010662312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12725/2025 Between: 1. POLINA RATHNA KUMARI,, W/O SREERAMULU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, R/O H.N0.4-19/A, SRIKRISHNA NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, TIRUPATHI TOWN AND DISTRICT 2. POLINA SREERAMULU NAIDU ALIAS SREERAMULUL,, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION,R/O H.N0.4-19/A, SRIKRISHNA NAGAR, 2 CROSS,TIRUPATHI TOWN AND DISTRICT. 3. POLINA SAI GANESH CHOWDARY, S/O SREERAMULU NAIDUOCC PRIVATE JOB, R/O H.NO.4-19/A,SRIKRISHNA NAGAR, 2 CROSS,TIRUPATHI TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,RIY KODUR POLICE STATION,KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. MACHINA PAVITHRA, W/O POLINA SAI SRAVAN KUMARD/O MACHINA NARAYANA,AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,R/O STREET, NTR NAGAR,RIY KODUR TOWN AND MANDAL,ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. AYESHA AZMA S 2. AYESHA AZMAS Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court Made the Following Order: The instant Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, to quash the proceedings 2 in S.C.(POCSO) No.82 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Court for the Trial of Offence under the POCSO Act, Kadapa. 2. Heard Ms.Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are no allegations against the petitioners herein/A2 to A4 to attract the offence under Section 91 of the POCSO Act. The allegations made against the petitioners would only constitute offences under Section 85 of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that since the charges have not yet been framed by the Court, the petition may be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to raise such submissions before the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. As seen from the record, the petitioners are facing trial in S.C. (POCSO) No. 82 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Court for the Trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Kadapa. The grievance of the petitioners is that there are no allegations against them to attract the offence under Section 91 of the POCSO Act. In a sessions case, the 3 learned Sessions Judge, before framing charges, may hear both the prosecution and the defence. 7. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. However, the petitioners are permitted to raise such contentions before the learned trial Judge and the learned trial Judge is directed to look into such aspects and frame correct charges against the petitioners to proceed with the trial. 8. In case the petitioners are aggrieved, they are at liberty to file a fresh application challenging the same, if so advised. Pending applications, if any, shall stands closed. __________________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 09.12.2025 Asr 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.12725 of 2025 Dt.09.12.2025 Asr