THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.866 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 to call for the records relating to the order dated 28.11.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.567 of 2024 in SC POCSO No.54 of 2024 on the file of the Special Court for the Trial of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act Cases, HACA Bhavan at Hyderabad, and quash the same by conducting separate trial of petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 under Section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’).

2. Heard Ms. Parimala Parigi, learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6, and Ms. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent- State.

3. Crl.M.P.No.567 of 2024 in SC POCSO No.54 of 2024 is filed under Section 218 Cr.P.C., before the Fast Track Special Court for the Trial of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act Cases, Haca Bhavan, Hyderabad, by petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6. By order dated 28.11.2024, the Special Court, passed the following order:

“… On a perusal of the provision of law u/Sec.218 of Cr.P.C. (1) For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately.

Provided that where the accused person by an application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of the opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby, the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the charges framed against such person.

So, the Section of Law u/Sec.218 Cr.P.C., comes under the purview of Magistrate Court but not Sessions Court. The petition filed by the counsel for accused is not maintainable and it is devoid of merits. Hence, this petition is dismissed.”

4. Learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 submitted that separate trial of accused Nos.2 to 6 be conducted under Section 218 Cr.P.C., and as such the order passed by the trial Court is not in accordance with law. That this Court can direct the trial Court to take the case under its purview and pass appropriate orders. Learned counsel also contended that the trial Court has erroneously come to a conclusion that Section 218 Cr.P.C., comes under the purview of Magistrate, but not under the purview of Sessions Judge. It is further submitted that the Sections charged against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to

6, as seen, are to be tried separately.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent- State placed reliance on a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in G. Rajagopal v. State, rep., by the Inspector of Police (Crl.R.C.No.1003 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.10437 of 2022, dated 06.09.2022) and contended that a Criminal Petition is not maintainable and the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 have to prefer Criminal Revision before the appropriate Court. It is further submitted that petitioner(s) has to invoke the jurisdiction after framing of charges, that in the present case, petitioner(s) invoked Section 218 Cr.P.C., before the stage of framing of charges and hence, Crl.M.P.No.567 of 2024 in SC POCSO No.54 of 2024 is a premature petition and is liable to be dismissed on this ground too.

6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions.

7. Petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 filed Crl.M.P.No.567 of 2024 in SC POCSO No.54 of 2024 under Section 218 Cr.P.C., praying to try each charge separately. The trial Court by order dated 28.11.2024 held that the issue is to be decided by the Magistrate Court, but not by Sessions Court and dismissed the petition filed by petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6, as not maintainable and devoid of merits. This order dated 28.11.2024 is under challenge in the present Criminal Petition.

8. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in G. Rajagopal (supra), while dealing with the issue of invoking Section 218 Cr.P.C., in Crl.R.