Vittam Kiran Kumar v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-12-17. Vittam Kiran Kumar v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA // AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AI. ID TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16864 OF 2025 Between: 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. ... Petitioner/Accused4 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. 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 ...
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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. l. A. NO: 2OF 2025 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. 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 The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI,. \NGANA AT I{YDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE J. SREENI RAO 'AS CRIMINAL PETITION No . 16A64 of 2(t: 15 DATE: 17. 1 2. 20. 25 Between: Vittam Kiran Kumar .... Petitione - Accused No. 4 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and another Responden ts :ORDER: 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 pre-nare and t Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 ,the rf rr short, PCPNDT ActJ and Rules 6(6) g and of the pre Na,r I Diagnosric Techniques (Prohibition and Sex Selection) Rules, l ! r1 6 (for short, 'the PCPNDT RulesJ. z the counsel for 2.
Heard Mr' Rapolu Bhaskar' learned Additional learned Rao Veeramalla' Jithender and Mr' petidoner, No'1' for the respondent Public Prosecutor aPpearing that the submitted for the petitioner counsel J karned falsely and he was the offences committed has not petitioner the confessional crime based uPon in the Present implicated allegations' There are no other accused given by the statement the petitioner to against levelled specific allegations' much less 3(3)' 3A' under Sections for the offences ingredients attract the the and 8 of Rules 6(6) Act and the PCPNDT 23(lll2lof 6(b)(c) and allegations that entire submitted He further of the Rules' PCPNDT the onlY' Hence' Nos'1 to 3 I accused against are levelled \ a petitioner amounts to proceedings against the of the continuadon of law' of the clear abuse Process L submitted Public Prosecutor Additional 4.
Per antra,learned against the petitioner' revelled alregations are speci'c that there under for the offences ingredients that the submitted He further Act and Rules 23(1)(s) of the PCPNDT 6(b)(c) and Sections 3(3), 3A, The to the petitioner' Rules are attracted the PCPNDT 6(6) and 8 of have to be adjudicated petitioner' by the are raised grounds, which petitr-qger is triai' Hence' the full-fledged Court after by the trial -_n not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings in C. C. No. 44 of 2025. 5. Having considered the rival submission; made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the coml laint, and final I 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 I .
| raised by thc learned counsel for the petitioner ar disputed facts \ I 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. 6. 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 non-appearance 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. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/.
C DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 4 IJ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, I 1. The Judicial trlagistrate of First Class at Kamareddy. I 2. The station House officer, Kamareddy Town porice station, Kamareddy Dist 3' Two ccs to the Pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 4 One CC to Mr. RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 1711212025 \ lnE. JlA ( o ,J z ? fiL[ 2325 -e * rt t ORDER l5 CRLP. No. 16864 ot 2025 Accordingly, this Criminal petition is Dir;missed \
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.