THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2233 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner – accused seeking to quash the proceedings in SC/ST SC No.83 of 2025 by the Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, registered under Sections 420, 506 IPC & Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, including cognizance order dated

31.07.2025.

2. Heard Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cognizance orders are mechanically passed by the Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, without mentioning any reason, and hence, prayed to quash the same.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that appropriate orders may be passed in this case, in accordance with law, based on the allegations leveled in the charge sheet.

5. Perused the record.

6. The record discloses that the petitioner herein is the sole accused in SC No.83 of 2025. The allegations in the charge sheet point out that the petitioner and the complainant are working in the same College and that the accused hatched a plan to enjoy her on the false promise of marrying her and took her to an isolated place at Gandimaisamma road and forcefully enjoyed her sexually. It is further alleged that the petitioner continued the said act by treating her as his wife by stating that he is a divorcee and had a son and that he would marry her and whenever the complainant insisted him to marry her, he postponed the same on one pretext or the other and therefore, the complainant brought the same to the notice of the College Management, but they did not respond to her issue and threatened her and also removed her from service. Then she filed a complaint which was registered as Crime No.186 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 376(2)(f) of IPC and thereafter, the petitioner approached her and promised to marry her by convincing his son and also get her job reinstated and that she agreed for the compromise. Thereafter, he continued the relationship with her and started physical harassment and forced her to fulfill his wild sexual desires. When she compelled him to marry her, he started abusing her in filthy language and in the name of caste. Hence, she filed a private complaint, which was referred to the Police, Bachupally. On completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet before the court.

7. The trial Court on receiving the charge sheet has taken it on file as S.C.No.83 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 420, 506 IPC & Section 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against the accused and directed to issue summons.

8. The office note is put up by the concerned Supervisor and the Special Sessions Judge has simply signed the said cognizance order without paying attention to the allegations made in the complaint and in the charge sheet. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court ought to have assigned reasons that “prima facie the Court could make out the commission of offence and thus, the summons are issued” without which there would be violation of mandatory provision under Cr.P.C. Issuance of summons is not a mechanical course of action but it requires application of mind by the Magistrate to decide whether there is any prima facie case against the accused for issuance of summons. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the orders passed by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Revision Case No.816 of 2023 and Criminal Petition No.8136 of 2025 and the said petitions were allowed and the cognizance orders were quashed.

10. Learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court i