Dismissed¶39

Shaik Hameed Basha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Jan 2026CRLRC/1475/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court criminal revision dismissed; POCSO discharge refused; Section 227 CrPC discharge petition dismissed; Sections 397/401 CrPC revision; Section 164 CrPC — non-recording of victim's statement does not vitiate proceedings; prima facie material sufficient to frame charges; age and residence of victim; disputed questions of fact left to trial; S.C. POCSO No.236 of 2022; Crl.M.P.No.171 of 2024; Special Court Kadapa; petitioner/accused Shaik Hameed Basha; counsel M.Solomon Raju; APP Mrs. K.Priyanka Lakshmi; decided 23.01.2026 by Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the impugned order, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of the material available on record. ¶38

Shaik Hameed Basha Vs The State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/accused is entitled to discharge from the accusations in S.C. POCSO No.236 of 2022, i.e., whether the Trial Court's order dated 05.11.2025 dismissing his discharge petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. ought to be set aside. +2 more

¶15

Court's answer

On perusal of the impugned order, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of the material available on record.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court has rightly considered the prima facie material while dismissing the discharge petition, including the age and residence of the victim.

¶38

Key takeaways

Non-recording of the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not vitiate the proceedings — the Trial Court's observation to this effect is correct and endorsed by this Court.ratio¶38
The contentions raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which require detailed examination during the course of trial.ratio¶38
Endorsing the learned Trial Judge's observation, there is sufficient material on record and adequate grounds against the petitioner to frame the relevant charges.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1475 of 2025 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa; decided 23.01.2026). Revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC by the accused (Shaik Hameed Basha) challenging the order dated 05.11.2025 of the Special Court for POCSO Offences, Kadapa, in Crl.M.P.No.171 of 2024 in S.C. POCSO No.236 of 2022, whereby his discharge petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The High Court held the Trial Court's order to be on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of the record: the prima facie material, including the age and residence of the victim, had been rightly considered; the Trial Court's observation that non-recording of the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not vitiate the proceedings was affirmed; there was sufficient material and adequate grounds to frame the relevant charges; and the petitioner's contentions involved disputed questions of fact requiring detailed examination at trial. Finding no reason to interfere, the Court dismissed the revision; miscellaneous applications pending (IA Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC — dispensation with certified copy and stay of further proceedings) were directed to stand closed.

¶1

[3396]

¶2

APHC010697242025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1475/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

SHAIK HAMEED BASHA, S/O SHAIK KAREEMULLA BASHA,AGED 30 YEARS, OCC CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT,R/O HNO 7/589-1, UPSTAIRS, NEAR SHANTINIKETHAN SCHOOL,JAYANAGAR COLONY, SANKARAPURAM AREA,KADAPA CITY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NELAPADU.

¶13

XXXX, XXXX

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside order dated 05.11.2025 passed in CrlMP No; 171 of 2024 in SC POCSO Case No: 236 of 2022 on the file of the Learned Judge Special Court For Trial Of Offences Under The Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Kadapa in the interest of justice and pass

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the original certified copy of order dated 05.11.2025 in

¶18

¶19

CrlMP No: 171 of 2024 in SC POCSO Case No: 236 of 2022 on the file of Judge, Special Court For Trial Of Offences Under The Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Kadapa before this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of the main CrI. RC and pass

¶20

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in SC POCSO Case No: 236 of 2022 on the file of the Learned Judge, Special Court For Trial Of Offences Under The Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Kadapa and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.M SOLOMON RAJU

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1475/2025

¶28

JUDGMENT:

¶29

The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed, challenging the Order dated 05.11.2025, passed by the learned Judge, Special Court for Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Kadapa in Crl.M.P.No.171 of 2024 in S.C. POCSO No.236 of 2022, dismissing the petition filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., seeking discharge of the petitioner/accused from the accusations leveled against him.

¶30

Heard Mr. M.Solomon Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

¶31

The case of the prosecution is that on 16.05.2022, when the de facto complainant went to the washroom, the petitioner went upon the victim and tore her clothes and caught hold of her throat, squeezed her breast and intimidated her, saying, "How dare to come into the house and he will kill her by rape and by pouring acid over her and her father”. The Petitioner/Accused has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.171 of 2024 before the learned Trial Court, seeking his discharge from the case. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 05.11.2025 dismissed the discharge petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of

¶32

the discharge petition, the Petitioner/Accused approached this Court and preferred the present revision.

¶33

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds of revision, submits that the petitioner is innocent and that the dispute is purely civil in nature and there exists a land dispute between the de facto complainant and the petitioner’s mother. The de facto complainant orally gifted a 50% share in the property bearing D.No.7/589-1, Jayanagar Colony, Kadapa, to the petitioner’s mother on 02.12.2015. Thereafter, the family members of the de facto complainant interfered with her possession, compelling her to file O.S. No. 842 of 2021, which is pending. As the de facto complainant was abroad, service was effected through paper publication in “Siasath Daily Newspaper” (Kuwait) on 13.04.2022. He thereafter came to Kadapa on 09.05.2022, filed vakalat on 13.05.2022, and subsequently lodged the present false case on 17.05.2022 by involving his daughter. He would further submit that the statement of the victim was not recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by a Judicial Magistrate, but was instead recorded by the Women Sub-Inspector of Police. He would further submit that no such offence took place.

¶35

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that the trial Court has duly considered all the contentions raised and rightly rejected them. The Investigating Officer collected the study certificate from New Crescent English Medium School, Kadapa, which establishes the age of the victim as a minor and her residence and schooling at Kadapa. No reliable or cogent material was placed by the petitioner to show that the victim never resided at Kadapa. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶36

¶37

would further submit that the trial Court rightly observed that mere nonrecording of the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not vitiate the proceedings nor negate the existence of prima facie material to frame charges.

¶38

Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of the material available on record. The contentions raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which require detailed examination during the course of trial. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court has rightly considered the prima facie material while dismissing the discharge petition, including the age and residence of the victim, and has correctly observed that non-recording of the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not vitiate the proceedings. The learned Trial Judge has also observed that there is sufficient material on record and adequate grounds against the petitioner to frame the relevant charges. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order, and accordingly, the present revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶39