APHC010697242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1475/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK HAMEED BASHA, S/O SHAIK KAREEMULLA BASHA,AGED 30 YEARS, OCC CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT,R/O HNO 7/589-1, UPSTAIRS, NEAR SHANTINIKETHAN SCHOOL,JAYANAGAR COLONY, SANKARAPURAM AREA,KADAPA CITY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NELAPADU. 2. XXXX, XXXX ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside order dated 05.11.2025 passed in CrlMP No; 171 of 2024 in SC POCSO Case No: 236 of 2022 on the file of the Learned Judge Special Court For Trial Of Offences Under The Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Kadapa in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the original certified copy of order dated 05.11.2025 in 2 CrlMP No: 171 of 2024 in SC POCSO Case No: 236 of 2022 on the file of Judge, Special Court For Trial Of Offences Under The Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Kadapa before this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of the main CrI. RC and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in SC POCSO Case No: 236 of 2022 on the file of the Learned Judge, Special Court For Trial Of Offences Under The Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Kadapa and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SOLOMON RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1475/2025 JUDGMENT: The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed, challenging the Order dated 05.11.2025, passed by the learned Judge, Special Court for Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Kadapa in Crl.M.P.No.171 of 2024 in S.C. POCSO No.236 of 2022, dismissing the petition filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., seeking discharge of the petitioner/accused from the accusations leveled against him. 2. Heard Mr. M.Solomon Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.05.2022, when the de facto complainant went to the washroom, the petitioner went upon the victim and tore her clothes and caught hold of her throat, squeezed her breast and intimidated her, saying, "How dare to come into the house and he will kill her by rape and by pouring acid over her and her father”. The Petitioner/Accused has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.171 of 2024 before the learned Trial Court, seeking his discharge from the case. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 05.11.2025 dismissed the discharge petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the discharge petition, the Petitioner/Accused approached this Court and preferred the present revision. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds of revision, submits that the petitioner is innocent and that the dispute is purely civil in nature and there exists a land dispute between the de facto complainant and the petitioner’s mother. The de facto complainant orally gifted a 50% share in the property bearing D.No.7/589-1, Jayanagar Colony, Kadapa, to the petitioner’s mother on 02.12.2015. Thereafter, the family members of the de facto complainant interfered with her possession, compelling her to file O.S. No. 842 of 2021, which is pending. As the de facto complainant was abroad, service was effected through paper publication in “Siasath Daily Newspaper” (Kuwait) on 13.04.2022. He thereafter came to Kadapa on 09.05.2022, filed vakalat on 13.05.2022, and subsequently lodged the present false case on 17.05.2022 by involving his daughter. He would further submit that the statement of the victim was not recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by a Judicial Magistrate, but was instead recorded by the Women Sub-Inspector of Police. He would further submit that no such offence took place. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that the trial Court has duly considered all the contentions raised and rightly rejected them. The Investigating Officer collected the study certificate from New Crescent English Medium School, Kadapa, which establishes the age of the victim as a minor and her residence and schooling at Kadapa. No reliable or cogent material was placed by the petitioner to show that the victim never resided at Kadapa. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor 5 would further submit that the trial Court rightly observed that mere non- recording of the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not vitiate the proceedings nor negate the existence of prima facie material to frame charges. 6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of the material available on record. The contentions raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which require detailed examination during the course of trial. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court has rightly considered the prima facie material while dismissing the discharge petition, including the age and residence of the victim, and has correctly observed that non-recording of the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not vitiate the proceedings. The learned Trial Judge has also observed that there is sufficient material on record and adequate grounds against the petitioner to frame the relevant charges. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order, and accordingly, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 6 Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 23.01.2026. UPS 7 248 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1475/2025 Dt.23.01.2026 UPS