Dismissed¶¶42

Vittam Kiran Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Dec 2025CRLP/16864/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court (J. Sreenivas Rao, J.), Crl.P. No.16864 of 2025, order dated 17.12.2025: quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS by doctor/Accused No.4 against CC.No.44 of 2025 (JMFC Kamareddy) under PCPNDT Act 1994 Ss.3(3), 3A, 6(b)(c), 23(1)(2) and PCPNDT Rules 6(6) and 8 dismissed; specific allegations and disputed facts to be tried; personal presence dispensed with subject to counsel appearing on every date; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; however, the petitioner's personal presence before the trial court in C.C.No.44 of 2025 dispensed with unless specifically required, subject to representation through counsel on every hearing date, failing which the trial court may proceed in accordance with law; miscellaneous applications (including I.A. No.2 of 2025 for stay) ordered closed.

Vittam Kiran Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, against the petitioner/Accused No.4 for the offences under Sections 3(3), 3A, 6(b)(c) and 23(1)(2) of the PCPNDT Act, 1994 and Rules 6(6) and 8 of the PCPNDT Rules should be quashed.

¶¶28

Court's answer

Perusal of the complaint and final report reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioner sufficient to attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 3(3), 3A, 6(b)(c) and 23(1)(2) of the PCPNDT Act and Rules 6(6) and 8 of the PCPNDT Rules.

¶¶41

Ratio / Principle

The contentions and grounds raised by the petitioner's counsel are disputed facts which have to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial and cannot be adjudicated in the present criminal petition.

¶¶41

Key takeaways

There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, and accordingly the criminal petition is dismissed.ratio¶¶41
Taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances, the personal presence of the petitioner in C.C.No.44 of 2025 is dispensed with unless his presence is specifically required, subject to the condition that he shall represent through his counsel on each and every date of hearing; if he fails to appear on a date fixed by the trial Court for his appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.ratio¶¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS by Accused No.4, a doctor, against proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2025 (JMFC, Kamareddy) for offences under Sections 3(3), 3A, 6(b)(c) and 23(1)(2) of the PCPNDT Act, 1994 and Rules 6(6) and 8 of the PCPNDT Rules: HELD, on perusal of the complaint and final report there are specific allegations against the petitioner attracting the ingredients of the offences; the petitioner's contentions are disputed facts to be adjudicated only by the trial Court in a full-fledged trial and cannot be decided in the criminal petition; there are no grounds to quash. Petition dismissed. As a concession, the petitioner's personal presence before the trial court is dispensed with unless specifically required, subject to his representation through counsel on each and every date of hearing; on non-appearance on a date fixed for his appearance the trial court may proceed in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications closed. (J. Sreenivas Rao, J.)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA // AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AI.ID TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16864 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Vittam Kiran Kumar, S/o Vittam Nadipi Siddi Ramulu, aged about 40 years, Occ. Doctor at Old Kousalya Multi Speciality Hospital, Kamareddy, Rl/o H.No.5-7-270, Sriram Nagar Colony, Kamareddy.

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused4

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶11

Dr. P.Chandra Shekar, S/o Late P. Janardhan, Aged about 58^years, Occ. lic. District, Medical and Health Officer and Member Secretary, Convener, District Level Multi Member Appropriale Authority, PC and PNDT Act, Kamareddy O/a. DM and HO at Kamareddy

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶13

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 in Proceedings in CC.No.44 ol 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kamareddy.

¶14

l.A. NO: 2OF 2025

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memoiandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court^may be pleased to STAY of all further Proceedings in CC,No.44 ol 2025 on the^file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kamareddy,^pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum^of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments^{of Mr RAPOLU} BHASKAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. JITHENDER^RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent^No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent^No.2

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI,. \NGANA AT I{YDERABAI)

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE J. SREENI 'AS RAO

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 16A64 of 2(t: 15

DATE: 17.1 2.20.25

Between:

Vittam Kiran Kumar

....Petitione^- Accused No.4

¶25

AND

¶26

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and another

¶27

Responden ts

¶28

This criminal petition has been filr I by the petitioner/accused No.4 seeking to quash the 6,1 3sssali.*. 1. C.C.No.44 ot 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magis :rate of First Class, Kamareddy, for the offences under Sections 3(i), 3A, 6(b)(c) and 23(l)(2) of the pre-conception and pre-nare t Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 rf rr short, ,the PCPNDT ActJ and Rules 6(6) and g of the pre Na,r I Diagnosric Techniques (Prohibition and Sex Selection) Rules, l !r1 6 (for short, 'the PCPNDT RulesJ.

¶29

¶30

I \

¶31

Heard^{Mr'Rapolu Bhaskar' learned counselforthe} petidoner,^{and Mr' Jithender Rao Veeramalla' learned Additional} Public^{Prosecutor aPpearing for the respondent No'1'}

¶32

submitted^{that the} J karned^{counsel for the petitioner} has not^{committedthe offences andhe was falsely} petitioner the^confessional in the Present^{crimebased uPon} implicated There^{are no allegations'} statement^{given by the otheraccused} much^{less specific allegations'levelledagainstthe petitionerto} attract^{the ingredients for the offencesunderSections3(3)' 3A'} 6(b)(c)^{and 23(lll2lof the PCPNDTAct and Rules 6(6) and 8 of the} He further^{submittedthat entireallegations} PCPNDT^{of the Rules'} accused^{Nos'1 to 3onlY' Hence' the} are levelled^against continuadon^{of the proceedings against the petitioner amounts to a} clear^{abuseof the Process of law'}

¶33

Per antra,learned^{AdditionalPublic Prosecutor submitted} that there^{are speci'c alregations revelledagainst the petitioner'} He further^{submittedthat the ingredients for the offences under} Sections^{3(3), 3A, 6(b)(c) and 23(1)(s) of the PCPNDTAct and Rules} 6(6) and^{8 of the PCPNDTRules are attractedto the petitioner'The} grounds,^{whichare raisedby the petitioner' have to be adjudicated} by the^{trial Court after full-fledgedtriai' Hence' the petitr-qgeris}

-_n

I .|

not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2025.

¶40

¶41

Having considered the rival submission; made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the coml laint, and final report, it clearly reveals that there are specific all, gations against the petitioner to attract the ingredients for the offences under Sections 3(3), 3A, 6(b)(c) and 23(1)(s) of the PCPNI) I Act and Rules 6(6) and 8 of the PCPNDT Rules. The contentic,r s and grounds raised by thc learned counsel for the petitioner ar disputed facts and the same hzrve to be adjudicated and decided lt ' the trial Court after full-fledgecl trial and the same cannot be acj rdicated in the present criminal petition. Hence, there are no gl1 unds to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶42

Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismis ;ed. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and c i^.cumstances of the case, the presence of the petitioner in C.C.Nc .44 of 2O2S is dispensed with, unless his presence is specifically r:quired subject to the condition that the petitioner shall repres,., rt through his counsel on each and every date of hearing. Ir case of nonappearance of the petitioner on the specific date ro iixed by the trial Court for his appearance, the trial Court is enl tled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law.

¶43

¶44

¶45

Miscellaneous^{applications, pendingifany, shall stand}

¶46

closed.

¶47

SD/. C DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 4 IJ

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

SECTION OFFICER