THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.463 OF 2025

O R D E R

Heard Sri M. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.

2. This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the revision petitioner/accused No.1 aggrieved by the order of the learned XII Additional Sessions Judge for trial of cases under POCSO Act, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No.403 of 2023 in SC PCS No.267 of 2021, dated 20.05.2025, wherein, the said petition filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C seeking discharge of the petitioner/accused No.2 from the offences under Sections 366-A, 376(2) (i) (n) IPC and Section 5 (I) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 has been dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the police on 27.12.2020 alleging that he has three children and on that day, when he returned home, his brother Kishan asked him to check whether his second daughter aged 15 years studying in Class X is at home. On checking the same, it is learned that she is at his elder sister’s house by name Rama and from there, his daughter was sent to home from her house. His daughter did not come home and later he came to know that his second sister Laxmi’s son Rajesh has taken his daughter along with him and performed marriage. In that context, the Police, Falaknuma registered a case in Crime No.446 of 2020 for the offence under Section 363 of IPC and after investigation, laid charge sheet for the offences 366 (A), 376(2)

(i) (n) IPC and Section 6 r/w 5 (1) of POCSO Act, 2012.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the petitioner/accused No.2 has no role in commission of alleged offences but her name has been included as she is sister of accused No.1. There are no overt acts attributed to the petitioner except that she supplied a cell phone to accused No.1 to talk to the victim girl but the victim girl has voluntarily stayed with accused No.1. The victim girl never objected and never complained against accused No.1. The accused No.1 dropped the victim girl at her house on 28.12.2020. It is also alleged that the petitioner is implicated for the purpose of extorting money from accused No.1. The petitioner claimed that when there are no grounds to frame any charge, she is entitled to be discharged from the alleged offences.

5. The learned Trial Court upon considering the version of the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor has dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

6. In grounds of revision, the facts and events leading to lodging of the complaint under POCSO Act are re-stated. Further, it is pleaded that the petitioner herein is not liable to be prosecuted under Sections 366-A, 376(2) (i) (n) IPC and Section 5 (I) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 as the charge sheet reveals that the petitioner is in no way concerned with the offences committed by accused No.1. According to the statements of witnesses, no offence is made out against the petitioner and therefore, she is entitled to be discharged. The statement of the victim herself does not disclose any overt act against the petitioner herein except that she supplied a cell phone to facilitate conversation between accused No.1 and the victim. Further, it is pleaded that according to the statement of LW3, the victim girl followed accused No.1 voluntarily and stayed with him by travelling on motor bike and she never made any objection or complaint and was finally dropped at her home. The delay in lodging of FIR is also one of the ground for seeking discharge of the petitioner apart from the fact that there is no material evidence to connect the petitioner with the offences alleged.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the statement of victim alleging that there are no overt acts that can be attributed to the petitioner herein and that the