B.RAJINI Vs. PAKALA SATYANARAYANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner against the order dtd. 10/1/2024 in Crl.M.P.No.46 of 2024 in Spl. S.C.No.09 of 2020 passed by the Special Judge for trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.

(2.) The petitioner is the de facto complainant and respondent No.1 is the accused No.1 in Spl. S.C.No.09 of 2020. The offences charged against the accused No.1 are under Ss. 376 (1), 417, 420, 379, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.') and Sec. 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SCs and STs (POA) Act'). The trial in Spl. S.C.No.9 of 2020 has almost culminated and the matter was posted for judgment and at that point of time, the de facto complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.46 of 2024 in Spl. S.C.No.9 of 2020 under Sec. 311 read with Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C. and Sec. 15-A (4) of the SCs and STs (POA) Act seeking a direction to the respondent/accused to deposit his mobile phone bearing No.99858 61414 before the Court to forward the mobile phone to Cyber Mobile Forensic Unit FSL, Hyderabad to retrieve the messages sent by the respondent/accused and also to examine the service provider/Manager, Jio Mobile Services, Cyberhills Colony, P. Janardhan Reddy Nagar, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, to ascertain that the mobile connection bearing No.99858 61414 was allotted to the respondent/accused.

(3.) During the course of examination of PW.1, who is the de facto complainant/petitioner herein, she specifically stated that she received all the messages from the accused through his phone No.99858 61414, but the accused denied the same and gave a suggestion that the said phone number did not belong to him, but as per the Phone Pay App, the mobile bearing No.99858 61414 belonged to one P. Satyanarayana Rao i.e., respondent/accused No.1 in the above case and it is a prepaid connection and still the phone number stood in his name. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the subject petition.