THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7576 of 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him in S.C.POCSO No.93 of 2024 on the file of the learned Fast Track Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, arising out of Crime No.688 of 2022 of P.S. Chaitanyapuri. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 9 of The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 5(1)

r/w 6 POCSO Act, 2012.

02. Heard Mr. A.Mahadev, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State and Mr.Maram Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03. The allegation against the petitioner-accused No.3 is that on 27.11.2020, he contacted the marriage with respondent No.2 who was minor and led a marital life with her for about 25 days. Thereafter, respondent No.2 quarreled with the petitioner-accused No.3 and went to her parents’ house. Later, the petitioner-accused No.3 came to know that respondent No.2 was a minor, aged about 15 years, and accordingly, he applied for divorce.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further contended that the marriage of petitioner with respondent No.2 was solemnized on 27.11.2020 in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs and it was an arranged and inter caste marriage. At the time of marriage, the petitioner and his parents were informed that the respondent No.2 was more than 18 years of age. However, after the marriage, the respondent No.2 started asserting that as on the date of marriage, she did not complete 18 years of age and was a minor. Thus, having made the petitioner to believe that she was a major, the respondent No.2 married him fraudulently misrepresenting her age. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 is not consummated, as the respondent No.2 was not willing for consummation. Further, after the marriage, the respondent No.2 hardly stayed with the petitioner for about 25 days, that too at intervals and not continuously. It is further contended that the petitioner was granted divorce with the respondent No.2. In the absence of any allegations that there was aggravated penetrative sexual assault, the ingredients of the offences charged against the petitioner are not attracted. While seeking for quashment of the criminal proceedings relied upon a decision in Balveer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand¹ wherein it was held that:

“From the language of Section 9, it transpires that to constitute an offence under Section 9 of the Act accused must have knowledge that he is getting married with a child. There is nothing on record to suggest that appellant was having knowledge or any reason to believe that prosecutrix was child. Therefore, offence under Section 9 of the Act is also not made out. Moreover, appellant was not charged under Section 9 of the Act, nor such a question was asked to him while recording his statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

05. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. All the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage.

Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

06. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, and on perusal of the material record, it is apparent that the marriage of the respondent No.2 was performed by her parents with the petitioner-accused No.3 on 27.11.2020 in the presence of their elders and well-wishers and the respondent No.2