APHC010695072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1505/2025 Between: KORADA YASWANTH KUMAR, S/O APPALANAIDU, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,R/O JARAJAPUPETA VILLAGE, NELLIMARLA MANDAL,VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI, 2. THE VICTIM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS has been filed by the Petitioner / Accused seeking to set aside the Order dated 05.12.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.386 of 2025 in POCSO S.C.No.58 of 2025 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’) at Vizianagaram for the offences under Sections 78, 64(1) and 89 of BNS and 2 Section 5 (l), 5 (j) (ii) read with 6 of POCSO Act and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Heard Sri Bonu Rama Shankara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. None appeared for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to settled law, as there is no prima facie material to connect the Petitioner with the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that the prosecution case is based on presumptions, vague allegations, and unsupported statements, without proof of essential ingredients under B.N.S.S., POCSO Act, or the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that the relationship was consensual and both parties had agreed to marry with the consent of elders. The complaint is a misuse of process. The Court below erred in conducting a mini trial at the stage of discharge. Therefore, continuation of proceedings amounts to harassment and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the impugned order is legal and based on sufficient prima facie material. At the stage of discharge, only strong suspicion is required and not detailed examination of evidence. The victim’s statement and supporting material disclose the alleged offences. Hence, no interference is called for and the petition deserves dismissal. 3 5. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the Court below has rightly considered the material placed before it and has recorded a finding that there exists sufficient prima facie evidence against the Petitioner. At the stage of discharge, the Court is only required to see whether there is a strong suspicion against the accused and not to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence. This Court is of the view that the contentions raised by the Petitioner are on factual aspects, which are matters to be decided during trial. The Court below has not committed any illegality or irregularity warranting interference under revisional jurisdiction. 6. In that view, this Court does not find any merit in the Criminal Revision Petition. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. No interference is warranted. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:20.01.2026 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.No.1505 of 2025 Dt.20.01.2026 Dinesh