Allowed

Gaddam Venkata Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Sept 2025CRLP/1069/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hotel owners arrayed as accused Nos.5 and 6 in a POCSO case sought quashing of proceedings, contending they had leased the hotel and had no nexus with the offence. The High Court held the charge-sheet disclosed nothing against them beyond hotel ownership and quashed the proceedings relying on Bhajan Lal.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 6 in SC POCSO No.347 of 2024 quashed; pending interlocutory applications closed.

Gaddam Venkata Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^329e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1069 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1 . Gaddam Venkata Rao, S/o.Late G.Krishna, aged about 54 years, Occ. Business. R/o.H.No.5-8-32212, Ulna Bagh, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶9

Kotteti Simhadri, S/o.K.Nageshwar Rao. aged about 37 years, Occ. Business, R/o.Flat No.503, Padmavathi Heights, Suncity, Bairaguda, RR District

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.s & 6

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana.

¶13

2, Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner herein in SC POCSO No. 347 ol 2024 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of POCSO Act Cases-cumXll Additional lVletropolitan Sessions Judge: Nampally Hyderabad

¶16

l.A. NO: 2OF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in SC POCSO No. 347 ol 2024 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of POCSO Act Cases-cum-Xll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad

¶18

This Petitlo.t coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri s NAGESH REDDY ,Advocate for the petitioner and sri E.Ganesh Ass: pubric prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent no.1 and none appear for Respcndent no.2

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{E.V.VENUGOPAL} CRIMINAL PETITION^{No.1O59 OF 2o25}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The present criminal^petition is^{liled by the petitioners/accused} Nos.S and 6 seeking to^quash the^{proceedings againstthem in SC} POCSO No.347 of 2024 on the^{Iile of the learned SpecialJudge for Trial} of POCSO Act Cases-cum-Xll^{Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,} Nampa11y, Hyderabad, arising^{out of FIR No.56 of 2024, daled} 23.O2.2024 of Falaknuma^{Police Station.}

¶24

Heard Sri S.Nagesh Reddy,^{learned counsel for the petitioners} and Sri E.Ganesh,^{learned Assistant Public Prosecutorrepresenting} learned Public Prosecutor^{for the State.Though noticeis ordered,none} appeared for the^{respondentNo.2/de-facto complainant'}

¶25

The brief averments of the charge-sheet^{filed against the accused} are that the victim,^{who is the daughter of the de-facto complainant,} born on 26.04.2O7O and^{was studyingin 8fr standard at that particular} point of time, allegedly developed^{relationshipwith accused No'1, who,} despite knowing that she^{was a minor, on 22.02.2024 took her to Hotel} New Sabharwal Palace, near^{Nampally Railway Stationwith the aid of} accused Nos.2 and 3. Using a^{false ID arranged by accusedNo'2,} accused No.3 allotted a room,^{whereaccused No.1 had sexual} intercourse with^{the victim. On returninghome at O2:00 AM, the victim}

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

revealed thr: incident to her parents, leading to registration of FIR No.56 of 2024 d,ated 23.02.2024 at pS Falaknuma. It is fr-rrther alleged in the charge_sheet that during investigation, accused No.4 stated that petitioners I arl .leased him the hotel in August, 2O2:l forRs. 1, 1 2,OOO/ _ per month ri'ith a deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-, informing him that it had no trade licr:nce. On this basis, the respondent/police laid chargesheet for th,-- e11sr.., under Sections 366_.4, 326(1),109 IpC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the pocSO Act.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation of sexuar assaulr- is solery against accused No. i, v'ith abetment attributed to accused Nos'2 and 3' The petitioners had no operationar contror over the hotel at the relevant time and no nexus with the aileged offence. No specific or direct allegations have been made agains;t them. Section 366-,{ IpC, which pertains to inducement of a rninor for iliicit intercourse, is inapplicable as the charge_sheet does not aliege any inducement by the petitioners' The petitioners had no oontact with the victim and did r-rot pa.ticipare in the offence and hence, Section 376(1) IPC is not atfacted. The hotel had been leased out to accused No.4, and all operationzrl control had been relinquished by rhe petitioners. There is no mate.rial indicating their personal involvement. The chargesheet does not disclose the ingredients necessary to inrarke Sections 3 and 4 of the pO.SO Act, as there is neither allegatron r or evidence of

¶29

Page 3 ol6

¶30

rY{tirliFYr,_;// ..,/

¶31

penetrative sexual assault attributable to the^{petitioners.Abetment} under the POCSO Act requires active^{instigation or facilitation, whichis} absent in this case. The^{recordshows that accused Nos 2 and 3} arranged the false ID and^{facilitated the roomallotment' The petitioners} had no knowledge of the offence and^{did not abet its commission. The} allegation regarding the absence of^{a tradelicence does not amountto} abetment in 1aw. Therefore, Section^{1O9IPC is also not applicable.}

¶32

(a) Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits^{that in} light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances,^{the continuation} of the present criminal^proceedings against^{the petitioners amountsto} a gross abuse of the^process of^{law. It is submitted that there is a} complete absence of any material linking^{the petitionersto the} commission of the alleged offence,^{either directly or indirectly. The} petitioners have been unnecessarily roped into the^{case despite there} being no specific allegations, operational^{involvement,or culpable} intent attributed to them in the charge-sheet^{or supportingmaterial'It} is further contended that subjecting the^{petitioners to the rigour of a} criminal trial, in the absence^{of prima facie evidence, wouldnot only} serve no purpose in the ends of^{justice but would also result in} unwarranted hardship, mental^{agony,and irreparableharm to their} reputation. The^{proceedings, as they stand, are clearly vexatiousand} oppressive in nature, and if allowed^{to continue,would defeat the very}

¶33

Pase 4 of 6

¶34

.--
--; . ,' t13; t
' =- i..t;r'
.1. i: ::ai. ,:,.. -, . ...i.
. "..
1'..

¶35

purpose of the judicial process. Stating thus, learned counsel for the petitioner soeks to quash the present criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

¶36

On the other hand, learned Assistant public prosecutor submits that the charge-sheet discloses sufficient material warranting trial, and the petitioners' claim of non-involvement cannot be decided at this stage. The hotei, where the offence occurred, is owned by the petitioners and whether they had knowledge or abetted the offence is a matter of evidence, which must be examined duri.g tria1. where the allegations, on their face, disclose a cognizable offence, stifling a legitimate prosecution does not meet the ends of justice. The petitioners' rlefence can be raised during trial ancl quashing at this stage is uns,arranted. Section 366(A) of IpC is not charged against the petitioners. Stating thus, he sought to dismiss the present criminal petition.

¶37

Having, heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is e'ident that the petitioners are the o."r/ners of the hotel, where the zrlleged incident occurred and confess;ion statement of accused No.4 ,riscl0sed that the petitioners hacl reased out the hotel to him in the rnonth of August, 2023 for a rent of Rs.1,12,000/_ per month with er deposit of Rs.2,O0,OOO/-, informing h:im that it had no

¶38

Page 5^of6

¶39

1 It

¶40

trade^{iicence'The above facts would demonstratethat as on the date of} alleged^{offencei,e. on 22.02.2024though the petitionerswere the} owners^{of the hoter, they rerinquishedits management and they were} alien^{with regard to the state of the affairs of the said hotel ln that} view of^{the matter, knowredgeof the aileged offence or its abetment} cannot^{be attributable to the petitionersThe record' prima-facieshows} that except^{the ownership of the hotel' nothing is there to rope the} petitioners^{in the array of accused'}

¶41

In the^{abovefactual scenario'itis pertinent to refer to the} findings^{of the Hon'ble Apex Courtrendered in State of Haryana vs'} Bhajan^{Lalr wherein it was held that wherethe allegations made in the} FIR or^{complaint,even if taken at face value and accepted in their} entirety,^{do not primalacie constitute any offence or make out a case} or where^{the aliegations are inherently} against^theaccused' made^{with malicious intent' and have been} improbable,^vague,or instituted^{with an ulteriormotiveto wreak vengeanceon the accusedor} to harass^{him due to personalor privategrudge, such proceedings may} be^{quashedby the High Courtin exercise of its inherent powers under} Section^{482 of theCodeof Criminal Procedure}

¶42

¶43

I 1992 SupP (1) SCC 335

Page 6 ot 6

\i.1*i

I I

wher the facts of the present case are teste(r on the touchstone of the lega.l pr.inciples laid down in the abovementioned decision, it becomes evident that the entire recitals of the charge_sheet, as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded during tne investigation, do not prima f:rcie disclose any specific allegations ag€rinst the petitioners in respect of the offences for which they have been implicated and charge-sheered. Accordingly, the impugned procer:dings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. In view of the zLbove, this court is inclined to allow- the present criminal petition and quash the impugned proceedings as against the petitioners.

¶48

ln the result, the present criminal petitior.r is alrowed and accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioners/ ilccused Nos.5 and 6 in SC POCSO No.347 of 2024 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of pocSo Act cases-cum-Xll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampalty, Hyderabad are hereby quashed.

¶49

10 Interlocurory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

sd/- N. sRtHAR| IDF PUTY REGISTRAR ,l-t\ !ltrt SECTION OFFICER

¶52

To,

¶53