Telangana High Court
Lingala. Pavankalyan vs The State Of Telangana on 13 August, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
Criminal Petition No.11980 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) for quashment
of proceedings in S.C. POCSO No.140 of 2024 on the file of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (for short, ‘POCSO’) Court,
at HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad.
2. I have heard Mr.Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State and Mr. L.Ram
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
3. The petitioner is arrayed as accused in S.C. POCSO No.140 of
2024 for the offences under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC‘) and Section 6 r/w 5(j)(ii) of POCSO
Act, 2012.
4. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No. 2, the father of
the victim girl, lodged a complaint alleging that his minor daughter, P.
Swapna, went missing from her college on 12.06.2023 and that the
petitioner had abducted the missing girl.
2 NTR,J
Crlp_11980_2024
Based on these findings, the police charged the petitioner with
offences of abduction and sexual assault. The petitioner, however,
stated that the victim had voluntarily left home. According to him, in the
third week of December 2022, following an acquaintance between
them, the victim left home and reached Siddipet bus stand, from where
the petitioner took her to Vemulawada. There, they engaged in sexual
intercourse, and she returned home the same day at about 7:30 p.m. A
Again, in the second week of February and in March 2023, the
victim went to Vemulawada, met the petitioner, and engaged in sexual
relations.
In June 2023, a doctor confirmed that the victim was pregnant.
Subsequently, the petitioner and the victim went to the Shivam Temple
in Nizamabad and got married. In her statement before the Bharosa
Centre, the victim reiterated that the sexual relationship was
consensual, that she had conceived prior to the marriage, and that a
child was born to them on 13.09.2023. A DNA test confirmed that the
petitioner is the biological father of the child.
Despite this, upon the complaint of the victim’s father, a case
was registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act (POCSO) and the child was shifted to Sishu Vihar Orphanage
Centre at Madhuranagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.
3 NTR,J
Crlp_11980_2024
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the charges
are unfounded, as the entire course of events arose from the voluntary
and consensual relationship between the victim and the petitioner. It
was further submitted that the victim attained majority on 03.06.2024,
and the couple is now living together as legally wedded husband and
wife. They have been blessed with a child, and the victim is presently
pregnant for the second time. Continuation of criminal proceedings, it is
argued, would cause irreparable harm to their marital life and the
welfare of their children.
Reliance was placed on the following judicial precedents:
(i) Djhandapani v. State represented by the Inspector of Police
(Crl.A.No.796of2022);
(ii) Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (SLP (Crl.) No.8989 of 2010);
(iii) Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka (Crl.P.No.4658 of 2024);
(iv) XXXX v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C.No.2031 of 2024); and
(v) Skhemborlang Suiting & Another v. State of Meghalaya &
Another (Crl.P.No.63 of 2021).
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that by the date
of the alleged occurrence, the petitioner was a minor, which led to the
initiation of proceedings. However, both the petitioner and the victim
have since attained majority, are living together, and had a child. The
4 NTR,J
Crlp_11980_2024
counter affidavit filed by the victim herself indicates that the relationship
was consensual and that she does not wish to pursue the prosecution.
7. In counter filed by Respondent No. 3/victim girl the victim
confirmed the facts narrated by the petitioner, affirming that she is
living happily with him, is pregnant for the second time, and that no
offence has been committed. She prayed for the quashing of
proceedings to ensure a stable marital life and secure the future of their
children.
8. I have perused the materials on record.
9. The victim herself has filed a counter affidavit stating that she
has no objection to the quashing of proceedings and seeks the same in
the interest of preserving the marriage and the welfare of their children.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2012) 10 SCC 303, has held that the High Court may quash criminal
proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC
where the parties have settled the matter and the continuation of
proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, notwithstanding
that certain offences are non-compoundable, provided the offence
does not have a serious impact on society at large.
5 NTR,J
Crlp_11980_2024
11. Similarly, in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC
641, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that criminal cases arising
from matrimonial disputes or consensual relationships, where the
parties have subsequently married, may be quashed to secure the
ends of justice.
12. In Djhandapani v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police,
Crl.A. No.796 of 2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed
proceedings under the POCSO Act where the prosecutrix had
voluntarily accompanied the accused, later married him, and they were
living together happily.
13. In XXXX v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C.No.2031 of 2024) and
Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka (Crl.P.No.4658 of 2024) view has
been taken that, in exceptional cases, even POCSO charges may be
quashed when the factual matrix reveals a consensual relationship and
the prosecutrix is now an adult seeking to continue marital life with the
accused.
14. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the
consensual nature of the relationship, the subsequent valid marriage,
the birth of a child, and the victim’s categorical statement that she does
not wish to prosecute, this Court is satisfied that the continuation of
6 NTR,J
Crlp_11980_2024
proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to an
abuse of the process of law.
15. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in
S.C. POCSO No.140 of 2024 on the file of the POCSO Court, at HACA
Bhavan, Hyderabad against the petitioner are hereby quashed.
Further the Respondent No.1/prosecution is directed to take steps
forthwith for handing over the child of the petitioner and respondent
No.3/victim from Sishu Vihar Orphanage Centre at Madhuranagar,
Yousufguda, Hyderabad.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date:13.08.2025
ccm