Allowed¶61

Sirasala Surya Pavan v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Jan 2026CRLP/17476/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sirasala Surya Pavan v. The State of Telangana, CRLP No.17476 of 2025, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, 06.01.2026, Tirumala Devi Eada, J. — S.528 BNSS 2023 — quashing petition against refusal (order dt. 16-12-2025, Crl.M.P.No.687 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.972 of 2019) to summon Superintendent of Child Welfare Centre, Ameerpet; PW-6 victim disclosure to CWC; conditional summoning on 19.01.2026; single-date hearing; bar on adjournments; adverse inference for deviation; POCSO/Rape Fast Track Special Court, Rangareddy District, Rajendranagar.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed: the Superintendent of CWC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, to be produced/summoned on 19.01.2026, examined by way of defence cross-examination and arguments concluded on the same date, with no further adjournments permitted. ¶61

Sirasala Surya Pavan Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the Superintendent of the Child Welfare Centre (CWC) needs to be summoned to question her on the alleged abuse committed by accused No.1 and on accused No.2 dropping the victim at the CWC.

¶7

Court's answer

PW-6's statement to the CWC (that at the instance of accused No.1 her father was abusing her) was already contained in her chief examination, not first revealed in cross-examination, and defence counsel had ample time to cross-examine the victim on that aspect and admitted doing so.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

Without causing any prejudice to the rights of the accused, the criminal petition is allowed on condition that only a single date of hearing is fixed; on that date the Superintendent of CWC shall be summoned and cross-examined by the defence, who shall conclude arguments without further adjournment; the Trial Court shall grant no adjournments beyond that date, and any deviation by the defence would nullify the orders with an adverse inference to be drawn.

¶50

Key takeaways

As the trial is posted on 19.01.2026, the Superintendent of CWC shall be present on that date, the defence counsel shall cross-examine her and submit arguments the same day thereby concluding the proceedings, and the defence counsel undertakes to serve personal notice on the Superintendent of CWC, Ameerpet, so that she attends without fail.ratio¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.528 BNSS, 2023 allowed — Order of the Fast Track Special Judge (Rape and POCSO Cases), Rangareddy District dated 16-12-2025 in Crl.M.P.No.687 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.972 of 2019, dismissing the accused No.1's plea to summon the Superintendent of the Child Welfare Centre (CWC), Ameerpet, challenged. PW-6 (victim) had disclosed to the CWC that at the instance of accused No.1 her father was abusing her; the Court found this was already stated in her chief examination and defence counsel admitted cross-examining her on the point. Nonetheless, to avoid prejudice to the accused, the petition was allowed conditionally: a single hearing date (19.01.2026) only, on which the CWC Superintendent is to be present, cross-examined by the defence and arguments concluded the same day; no further adjournments; deviation by the defence would nullify the orders and attract an adverse inference; defence counsel to serve personal notice on the Superintendent.

¶1

13444 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 17476 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

9irasala^{Surya Pavan, S/o S VenkateshwaruluAged about 29 years,Occ:} Tennis Coach, R/o. Flat No.501, Plot No.48, Survey No.30,31 Road No.9, Kakitya Hills, Madhapur, Rangareddy District, Telangana - 500081

¶9

Petitioner/Accused No.1

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

...Respondents/Respondents

¶13

Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 16-12-2025 passed in Crl. M.P- No. 687 of 2025 in SPL.SC. 972 of 2019 on the file of the Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Rangareddy District, at Rajendranagar and cousequently allow the same by summoning the SuperintendenVSupervisor of Child Welfare Center, H.No. 8-3-222, Vengalrao Nagar, Beside Madhuranagar Metro Station, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500038 along with the record pertaining to PW6 in the interest of justic€.

¶14

l.A. NO: l OF 2025

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of the 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 proceeding in SPL.SC. No. 972 of 2019 on the file of the Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Rangareddy District, at RajeMranagar pending disposal of the present criminal revision, in the interest of justice

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Midhun Kumar Allu, Advocate for the Petitioner No. 1 and Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 State.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

IN THE HIGH COU RT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶19

THE HOtl'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVIEADA

¶20

CRIMI NAL PETITION No.17476 ot 2025

Date:06.01.2026

Between:

Sirasala Surya Pavan

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶27

...Respondent

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking the Court to quash the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.6B7 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.972 of 2019 on the file of the learned Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Rangareddy Dsitrict, at Rajendranagar and consequently allow the said petition by summoning the Superintendent of CWC, Rl/o. Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶30

Heard Mr.Midhun Kumar Allu, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 as well as sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the

¶31

¶32

¶33

ETD, J Crlp_17416 2Q25

¶34

leamed Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1State.

¶35

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner to summon the witness i.e., the Superintendent of Child Welfare Center (for short^"CWC'). He further submitted that during the course of crossexamination of PW6, it is brought out that she has given a statement before the CWC about the abuse committed by petitioner/accused No.'l . Therefore, he submits that the said statement needs to be confronted to the Superintendent of CWC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, to ascertain the veracity of PW6. That the Trial Court has dismissed the petition without considering the submissions of the petitioner herein. The burden is on the petitioner/accused to disprove the case of the prosecution and hence dismissal of the petition would prejudice his rights. He therefore prayed to set aside the orders passed by the trial Court and allow the said criminal petition to summon the Superintendent of CWC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶37

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed submitting that ever since June 2025, the matter has been prolonged by filing one^petition or the other by recalling the witnesses and the^{present petition} is filed to summon the Superintendent^of CWC^for no^{reason.He further} submiited

¶38

¶39

ETD, J Crlp_17476 ]O2s

¶40

that even if the Superintendent of CWC is^{examined,no new facts are} going to be established nor is the evidence of victim^going to be demolished. He further submitted that the reasons assigned by the^Trial Court are^just and^proper and hence^prayed to dismiss^{the petition.}

¶41

Perused the record.

¶42

PW-6 is the victim. A^perusal of her Chief Examination reveals that she stated before the CWC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, that, at the instance of accused No.1, herfather was abusing her. The very next line in the Chief Examination is as follows:-

¶43

"... Accused no.1 used to tell me on mobile that he wanted to marry me and he wants to have kids with me..."

¶44

The contention of the petitioner is that it was only during the course of cross-examination that the victim (PW-6) has stated about her disclosure made to the Superintendent of CWC about the alleged abuses made by accused No.1 and that the said cross-examination was conducted on 19.11.2425 and hence, the present application was filed to summon the Superintendent of CWC. A perusal of the chief examination clearly reveals that the victim stated before the Child Welfare Officer that accused No.2 had taken her from her home to the said Officer, before whom she complained, at the instance of accused No.l, that her father

¶45

¶46

¶47

ETD, J Crlp_17476]025

¶48

was abusing her. The counsel had ample time to cross-examine the victim on the said aspect. Learned @unsel for the petitioner has faidy admitted that he has posed questions on this aspect.

¶49

While so, the only aspect that remains for consideration is that whether the Supeiintendent of CWC needs to be summoned to question her on the said aspect of abuse, if any, committed by accused No.1 and on the fact of aerused No.2 dropping the victim at the CWC.

¶50

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a story created by the victim and that a chance may be given to the accused to establish his defence. It is not known whether the CWC has any record or the Superintendent of CWC remembers the alleged fact of accused No.2 dropping the victim at the center or the statement given by the victim to the Officer at the CWC. However, without causing any prejudice to the rights of the accused, the petition is allowed with a condition that only a single date of hearing will be fixed and on the said date, the Superintendent of CWC shall be summoned and the learned counsel on record shall cross-examine the witness on the said date and also conclude his arguments without seeking any further adjournment. The Trial Court shall not grant any further adjournments beyond the said date of hearing to the counsel on record appearing for the accused. Any

---'

t I

ETD, J Crlp_17476]025

¶57

¶58

¶59

deviation in this regard on behalf of the defence counsel would nullify the orders and an adverse inference shall be drawn by the Triat Court.

¶60

lt is informed that the matter before the Trial Court is posted on 19.01 .2026. Therefore, the Superintendent of CWC shall be present on the said date and on the same day, the counsel shall cross-examine the witness and also submit his arguments, thereby concluding the proceedings on the very same date. The defence counsel undertakes to serve personal notice on the Superintendent of CWC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, so that she can be present on 19.01 .2026 without any fail

¶61