Inumpudi Venugopal vs The State of Telangana

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12587 of 2026


Between :

Inumpudi Venugopal S/o.laxmi Ganesh,
Aged: 24 years, Occupation: Private Job
R/o.H.No.7-138/1, , Sri Sri Avenue, Gurramguda,
Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

….Petitioner/Accused
VERSUS
State of Telangana through Police Station, Meerpet
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and another
… Respondents

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 01.09.2026

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the
Judgments?

Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

Yes/No
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish
to see the fair copy of the Judgment?
Yes/No


_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J

2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.12587 of 2026
% Dated 01.09.2026

# Inumpudi Venugopal S/o.laxmi Ganesh,
Aged: 24 years, Occupation: Private Job
R/o.H.No.7-138/1, , Sri Sri Avenue, Gurramguda,
Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.


….Petitioner/Accused
VERSUS
$ State of Telangana through Police Station, Meerpet
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and another

… Respondents

Mr. Ch. V. Prasad Babu
! Counsel for Petitioner :

^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned

< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10903
2. 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1404
3. 2022 SCCOnLine SC 1781
4. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1948

3
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 12587 of 2026
(CNR No.HBHC010489272026)

DATE: 01.09.2026
Between :

Inumpudi Venugopal
....Petitioner/Accused
AND

State of Telangana and another
....Respondents
: O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the
petitioner/accused, aggrieved by the order, dated 04.07.2026,
passed in Crl.M.P.No.318 of 2026 in S.C.SPL. No.480 of 2025 by the
learned Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and
POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (for short,
‘the trial Court’), whereby the petition filed by him under Section
250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short,
‘the BNSS’), seeking his discharge from all the charges framed
against him, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case :
Respondent No.2, who is the mother of the victim girl, lodged
a complaint on 17.08.2025 and the same was registered as Crime
No.1069 of 2025 against the petitioner for the offences punishable
under Sections 329(4) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

4
(for short, the BNS’) and Section 11 read with 12 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the POCSO
Act’). The Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of
LWs.1 to 11, filed a final report before the learned trial Court on
24.09.2025. The learned trial Court took cognizance of the said
offences and framed charges. At that stage, the petitioner filed
Crl.M.P.No. 318 of 2026 on 23.03.2026 seeking to discharge him
from all the charges framed in SC. SPL. No.480 of 2025. The trial
Court dismissed the said petition on 04.07.2026. Aggrieved by the
same, the present criminal petition has been filed.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
pursuant to the order dated 05.08.2026, the Station House Officer,
Meerpet Police Station, Hyderabad City Commissionerate/
Investigating Officer, served the intimation/notice as per Rule
4(15)(viii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules,
2020, to respondent No.2/ de facto complainant on 07.08.2026
about filing of the present criminal petition and posting of the
matter. A copy of the said intimation/notice is placed on record. In
spite of the above said intimation, respondent No.2 has not chosen
to enter appearance. Hence, this Court is not having any option
except to proceed with the matter.

5
4. Heard Mr. Ch. V. Prasad Babu, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
5. :
Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations
levelled either in the complaint and the final report, the ingredients
of the offences punishable under Sections 329(4) and 79 of the BNS
and Section 11 read with 12 of the POCSO Act are not attracted.
The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.318 of 2026 seeking to discharge him
from all the charges in SC. SPL. No.480 of 2025. However, the
learned trial Court, without properly considering the contentions
raised on behalf of the petitioner, erroneously dismissed the
petition.
5.2. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate had
recorded the statement of the victim girl under Section 183 of the
BNSS on 13.09.2025. In the said statement, the victim girl had not
made any allegation of a sexual act against the petitioner. She only
stated that the petitioner called her by knocking on the window.
The said allegation does not attract the ingredients of an offence
under Section 11 read with 12 of the POCSO Act.

6
5.3. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he
trespassed into the house of the victim girl with an intention to
commit sexual harassment. In the absence of any such allegation,
the petitioner was implicated as an accused for the offence under
Section 11 read with 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 329(4) of the
BNS, especially the ingredients of the said offences are not
attracted.
5.4. He further submitted that there is no allegation, either in the
complaint or in the statement recorded under Section 180 of the
BNSS or in the statement recorded by the learned Magistrate under
Section 183 of the BNSS, that the petitioner had contacted or
followed the victim girl repeatedly with a clear indication of her
disinterest. However, the petitioner was implicated for the offence
under Section 79 of the BNS solely on the basis of the alleged single
incident of entering the premises of respondent No.2 on 16.08.2025.
Hence, the offence under Section 79 of the BNS is also not
attracted. In such circumstances, the learned trial Court ought to
have allowed the discharge petition, on the other hand, dismissed
the petition. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court
is contrary to law and the same is liable to be quashed.
5.5. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following
judgments:

7
1
1. State v. Anil @ Kallu @ Thakur ; and
2
2. MRP (Identity withheld) v. State (NCT of Delhi) ;

6. Submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor :
6.1. Per contra , learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted
that respondent No.2, who is none other than the mother of the
victim girl, in her complaint, specifically stated that during the night
of 15.08.2025, her family members were sleeping in the house. On
16.08.2025, at about 4:30 a.m., when the victim girl woke up and
asked for drinking water, she went into the kitchen to bring the
water. In the meantime, the petitioner criminally entered her
house, saw her minor daughter, and made indecent gestures
towards her daughter. On seeing this, the victim girl shouted loudly
and the petitioner immediately escaped from there and her husband
also noticed the same. Thereafter, the petitioner went into the
watchman’s room and closed the door. The colony president also
noticed the petitioner and called upon him to come outside. When
they questioned the petitioner about the same, he did not give
proper response.
6.2. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer recorded
the statements of LWs.1 to 11 and thereafter filed the final report.
LW.1 is the de facto complainant, LW.2 is the husband of the de

1
2019 SCC OnLine Del 10903
2
2025 SCC OnLine Del 1404

8
facto complainant, LW.3 is the victim girl, LW.4 is the brother of the
victim girl, and LW.6 is the colony president. LW.3, in her
statement, specifically stated that the petitioner entered the house,
came near the window, and made indecent gestures towards her.
When she got scared and shouted loudly, on hearing her scream,
her father, uncle and brother immediately came out of the house
and the petitioner escaped from the said place.
6.3. He also submitted that the petitioner filed a petition seeking
discharge from all the charges solely basing on the minor variations
and discrepancies between the statements of the victim girl
recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS. The credibility
of the statements made by the witnesses and the evidentiary value
of the statements has to be adjudicated and determined only after a
full-fledged trial and the petitioner is not entitled to seek discharge
on the said ground. The learned trial Court rightly dismissed the
petition filed by the petitioner by giving cogent reasons and there
are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the
learned trial Court.
Analysis
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on
record, it reveals that based on the complaint dated 17.08.2025
lodged by respondent No.2, who is none other than the mother of

9
the victim girl, Crime No.1069 of 2025 was registered against the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 329(4) and 79 of the BNS
and Section 11 read with 12 of the POCSO Act. The Investigating
Officer, after recording the statements of LWs.1 to 11, filed the final
report before the learned trial Court on 24.09.2025. The learned
trial Court took cognizance of the said offences and thereafter,
framed charges against the petitioner on 09.07.2026. In the
meanwhile, the petitioner filed a petition invoking Section 250 of the
BNSS seeking discharge him from all the charges framed in SC.
SPL. No.480 of 2025 on the ground that in the statement of the
victim girl/LW.3 recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section
183 of the BNSS, she had not stated any sexual element against the
petitioner except stating that he knocked on the window and called
her and there is no sexual act, word, gesture, sound, utterance or
conduct of a sexual nature is described by the victim girl or any
other witness. To attract the ingredients of the offence under
Section 11 read with 12 of the POCSO Act, a sexual element is
essential. In the absence of any such element, the provision of
Section 11 read with 12 of the POCSO Act cannot be invoked. The
victim girl had not described the entry into the house in a manner
sufficient to establish the foundational ingredients of house
trespass. Hence, the ingredients of the offence under Section 329(4)
of the BNS were also not attracted. There is no allegation that the

10
petitioner had repeatedly contacted or followed the victim girl
despite a clear indication of her disinterest. Hence, the ingredients
of the offence under Section 79 of the BNS also not attracted.
8. Whereas, the case of the prosecution is that the victim
girl/LW.3, in her statement recorded under Section 180 of the
BNSS, specifically stated that the petitioner entered their house and
through a window made indecent gestures towards her. On seeing
the petitioner, she was scared and shouted loudly. On hearing her
cries, her father, uncle and brother immediately came to the spot
and the petitioner went into the watchman’s room and the colony
president/LW.6 was called him to come out side, but the petitioner
did not respond properly.
9. The record discloses that the statements of respondent
No.2/mother of the victim girl, father, brother and uncle of the
victim girl and colony president, were recorded under Section 180 of
the BNSS as LWs.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, along with other
witnesses, and the victim girl was examined as LW.3 and LWs.1 and
3 specifically stated that the petitioner had trespassed into their
house at 4.30 a.m. and made indecent gestures towards the victim
girl through the window. The learned trial Court, after due
verification of the allegations in the complaint and the final report
and the statements of the witnesses, took cognizance for the above

11
said offences and framed the charges. It is relevant to mention that
the petitioner filed the discharge petition only based upon the
variations in the statements of the victim girl/LW.3 recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS. The said discrepancies cannot
be taken into consideration at preliminary stage and the same have
to be adjudicated and decided after a full-fledged trial only. The
learned trial Court, after hearing the respective parties and duly
considering the averments made in the discharge petition as well as
the counter-affidavit filed by the prosecution, held that the victim
girl, in her statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS/161
of the Cr.P.C. before the police, had categorically corroborated the
averments made in the complaint. The trial Court further held that
there were minor variations between the statement recorded under
Section 180 of the BNSS/Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. before the
police and the statement recorded under Section 183 of the
BNSS/Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. The
said discrepancies are not material in nature and further held that
as per the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, at the stage
of framing of charges, the Court is not expected to meticulous
evaluate the evidence as if conducting a full-fledged trial. The
Court must only ascertain whether the allegations, if taken at face
value, constitute the offences alleged and justify proceeding against
the accused. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint and

12
the final report as well as the statement recorded by the
Investigating Officer under Section 180 of the BNSS and the
statement of the victim girl recorded by the Magistrate under
Section 183 of the BNSS are true or not, the same has to be
revealed during the course of trial. The learned trial Court has
rightly held that at stage of framing of charges, the Court is not
expected to meticulously evaluate the evidence. Only the Court
ascertains whether the allegations, if taken at face value, constitute
the offences alleged and justify proceeding against the accused.
10. Section 11 of the POCSO Act deals with sexual harassment.
The Explanation to the said provision says any accusation which
involves “sexual intent” shall be a question of fact. In the case on
hand, there is a specific allegation in the complaint that the
petitioner had entered the premises of respondent No.2 on
16.08.2025 at 04:30 a.m. and saw her minor daughter through
window and he made indecent gestures towards her. Whether the
petitioner had entered into the premises of respondent No.2 on
16.08.2025 at 04:30 a.m., knocked the window and called the
victim girl with sexual intent or not, the same is a question of fact
and the same has to be revealed during the course of trial.
11. It is relevant to mention that the petitioner is entitled to put
forth his grievance about the discrepancies between the statements

13
of the victim girl recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS
during the course of trial and based on the discrepancies and said
variations, the petitioner cannot seek discharge him from all the
charges, especially, when the Court is not expected to meticulously
evaluate the evidence as if conducting a full-fledged trial at the time
of deciding discharge petition.
12. It is relevant to mention that in Hazrat Deen v. State of
3
Uttar Pradesh , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere
discrepancies, omissions or inconsistencies between the FIR and
the subsequent statement of the victim recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. cannot, by themselves, constitute a ground for discharge of
the accused. Such discrepancies are matters of appreciation of
evidence and may be raised as a defence during trial; they cannot
be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of discharge by conducting
a roving or mini-trial. Where the material collected during
investigation otherwise discloses a prima facie case against the
accused, the accused cannot seek discharge merely on the basis of
such discrepancies.
4
13. In State v. Ashok Kumar Verma , the High Court of Delhi
held that at the state of framing of charge, contradictions between
statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. ordinarily

3
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1781
4
2023 SCC OnLine Del 1948

14
constitute a matter for trial and, by themselves, cannot be a ground
for discharge where the other material on record discloses a prima
facie case. However, where, upon consideration of the statement of
the complainant and the supporting material on record, no grave
and strong suspicion arises against the accused, the Court would
be justified in declining to frame the charge.
(supra )
14. In Anil @ Kallu @ Thakur , the Delhi High Court held
that where the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. does not disclose any sexual act or sexual intent on the part
of the accused, the essential ingredient of “sexual intent” required
for an offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act is not prima facie
established. Therefore, in the absence of material disclosing the
essential ingredients of sexual harassment, the accused is entitled
to discharge, and such an order of discharge ought not to be
interfered with unless it suffers from illegality or perversity. In
MRP
(supra), the Delhi High Court held that the
(Identity withheld)
absence of even the slightest indication of a sexually motivated
advance in the statements of the victim negates the foundational
requirement of “sexual intent”, which is an essential element of an
offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Mere touching, pressing
of lips or lying next to the victim, though it may result in violation of
dignity and may amount to outraging modesty, would, in the
absence of any overt or inferred sexual intent, fall short of the legal

15
threshold required to sustain a charge under Section 10 of the
POCSO Act. The presence of “sexual intent” is the determining
factor in distinguishing an act of mere physical force from an act
that constitutes sexual assault under the POCSO Act.
15. The above said judgments, which are relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, are not applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the present case on the ground that there are
specific allegations levelled in the complaint dated 17.08.2025 and
in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 180 of
the BNSS that the petitioner entered the premises of respondent
No.2 on 16.08.2025 at 04:30 a.m. and saw the victim girl through a
window and he made indecent gestures towards her. The petitioner
filed discharge petition solely on the ground that there are
discrepancies between the statements of the victim girl recorded
under Section 180 and 183 of the BNSS. It is already stated supra
that the discrepancies between the F.I.R. and the subsequent
statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of
the BNSS cannot, by themselves, constitute a ground for discharge,
such discrepancies are matters of appreciation of evidence and may
be raised as a defence during the trial.
16. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principle laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hazrat Deen and the High Court of

16
Delhi in Ashok Kumar Verma supra , this Court does not find any
ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned
trial Court, dated 04.07.2026, to exercise the powers conferred
under Section 528 of the BNSS and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 01.09.2026
L.R. copy to be marked
mar