THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to set aside the order dated 11.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 213 of 2025 in SC No.138 of 2020 by the Special Judge for trial of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act at Nalgonda.

2. Heard Mr.V.R. Machavaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State and Sri D. Narasimha, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court has erroneously dismissed the petition filed by them under Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short ‘Juvenile Justice Act’). They have submitted before the trial court that the petitioner-accused is a minor at the time of the alleged offence and relied upon the school certificate showing the date of birth of the accused herein is 18.03.2000 and thus, prayed to consider the petitioner to be a juvenile and transmit the case to the Juvenile Court, but the said petition was dismissed by the trial court causing prejudice to the rights of the accused. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that at the time of commission of the offence for the first time, the juvenile is at the age of 18 years and the offence was continued for a considerable time and thus, as on the date of complaint, he has attained majority and thus, the trial court has rightly dismissed the petition. The learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1947 and has prayed to upheld the orders of the trial court.

5. Perused the record.

6. The Sessions Case is pending against the petitioner herein for the offences under Sections 366-A and 376 (2) (n) IPC and Section 5 (I) read with 6 of the POCSO Act, vide SC No.138 of 2020 on the file of Special Judge for trial of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act at Nalgonda. The said case is pending for more than 5 years. The examination of the witnesses was completed whereunder PWs.1 to 18 were examined and Exs.P1

to P25 and MO1 was marked in evidence and when the case was posted for examination of the petitioner -accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., at that juncture, the petitioner has come up with the present petition under Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the original conduct and bonafide certificate of the petitioner issued by Venkateshwara Junior College. The date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 18.03.2000 and the SSC certificate submitted by the petitioner also discloses the same date of birth as 18.03.2000. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as on the date of offence, the petitioner was a juvenile.

7. The contents of the FIR and the recitals of the charge sheet point out that the accused followed the victim on the pretext of love and abused her sexually for which the parents of the victim warned him. But the accused has continued exploiting the victim sexually on the pretext of love for a period of four months prior to the date of the complaint i.e. 04.02.2019, that means the alleged exploitation continued till November, 2018. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as on the date of commission of the offence the petitioner is a minor. But, it is alleged in the recitals of the charge sheet that the petitioner continued the relationship with the minor girl till November 2018. The accused would be completing 18 years of age as on 18.03.2018. As per the recitals of the charge sheet the commission of offence occurred till November, 2018. Therefore, as on the date of commission of offence, the petitioner cannot be taken to be a minor. Therefore, he