Crl.P.No.12081 of 2023 is filed by the accused Nos.1, 6, 8 to 10 and Crl.P.No.12141 of 2023 is filed by accused Nos.2 to 5 and 7, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.3148 of 2020 on the file of the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, for the offence under Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘the JJ Act, 2015’).

Since both the criminal petitions are arising out of the same case and respondent No.2 - de facto complainant in both the cases is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

The case of the de facto complainant is that she came to know, through Vindhya Vaheeni Supervision of ICDS of Shankarampet-R Mandal, Kamram Thanda, that the accused have sold a male child aged 40 days, who was born at Gandhi Hospital, through a mediator at Jubilee Bus Station, Secunderabad, and thus, she lodged a complaint before the SHO, Shankarampet. A case was registered for the offence under Section 81 of the JJ Act, and it was taken on file vide C.C.No.3148 of 2020.

Heard the submissions of Sri E.Eswaraiah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a writ petition No.9591 of 2020 was filed in this case, which was disposed of by this Court vide orders dated 05.01.2021. The said writ petition was filed by the adoptive parents, who are petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.P.No.12141 of 2023, i.e., Kommuri Sreenivas and Kommuri Sujatha.

In the said writ petition respondent No.5, i.e., Banoth Naresh, who is the biological father of the child, and the husband of respondent No.6, filed a counter affidavit stating that they decided to give the child in adoption to the petitioners as agreed upon prior to the delivery, i.e., on 08.11.2019. That a ‘Datta Homam’ was performed at the house of the petitioners, in which they had permanently handed over the child to the petitioners in the presence of all their relatives and family members, and the baby was also named as Karthikeya by the adoptive parents.

Respondent No.7/Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) has also filed a counter affidavit, stating that no relief was sought against respondent No. 7 in the present writ petition, that CARA deals with the adoptions processed under the J.J.Act, 2015, but the present adoption falls under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short ‘HAMA, 1956’), and thus, the provisions of the J.J.Act do not apply in the instant case, and therefore, they have no role in the adoption which took place as per HAMA, 1956. Thus, considering the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7, this Court has observed that the offence under the J.J.Act does not get attracted against the petitioners, and that the petitioners are the adoptive parents, having adopted the minor child born to respondent Nos.5 and 6 therein through ‘Datta Homam’, and the adoption is very much valid under HAMA, 1956. With the above said observations, the writ petition was allowed, and the respondent No. 2 was directed to hand over the child to the petitioners (adoptive parents) in the presence of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, who are the biological parents. Respondent No. 2 in the writ petition is none other than the de facto complainant herein.

In pursuance to the orders of the writ petition, there appears to be no case at all in the present crime against the petitioners.

The petitioners in Crl.P. No.12081 of 2023 are accused Nos. 1, 6, and 8 to 10, alleged to have facilitated the adoption. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were alleged to have sold the baby, and petitioner Nos.3 to 5 were alleged to have taken part in the said sale of the child.

The petitioners in Crl.P.No. 12141 of 2023 are accused Nos. 2 to 5 and 7. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein are the adoptive parents/petitioners