High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.5167 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 26.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.5167 of 2025and Crl.M.P.No.3346 of 2025Muthusamy... Petitioner Vs1. State Rep.By, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.2. XXXX... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.274 of 2024 in Cr.No.23 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for POCSO at Coimbatore.For Petitioner : Mr.D.S.RameshFor R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side) ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.274 of 2024 in Crime No.23 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for POCSO at Coimbatore. Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5167 of 20252. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and perused the materials placed on record.3. The case of the prosecution is that when the defacto complainant was returning to her home from school, the accused pulled her dress and tried to take her to his house. Hence, the case. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.23 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 127(2) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012.4. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance in Spl.S.C.No.274 of 2024 and it is pending for Trial on the file of the Special Court for POCSO Act, at Coimbatore.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the incident had happened in the day-light. Due to previous enmity, a false complaint has been foisted as against the petitioner and no such occurrence had Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5167 of 2025been taken place. That apart, there was delay of 12 days in lodging the complaint. There was absolutely no explanation for the delay of 12 days. 6. The grounds raised by the petitioner can be considered only during the Trial before the Trial Court. That apart, a perusal of the statement recorded from the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C revealed that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offences under Sections 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012.7. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as follows:-" 12.So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5167 of 2025the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law. 8. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows:“19. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5167 of 2025minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put-forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.20.In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.”9. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, as follows: "9. It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5167 of 2025in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged............... 13. A look at the complaint filed by the appellant would show that the appellant had incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences alleged. The question whether the appellant will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage...................."The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points raised by the petitioner are mixed question of facts and it cannot be considered in quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.10. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceeding in Spl.S.C.No.274 of 2024 on the file of the Special Court for POCSO Act, at Coimbatore. The Trial Court is directed to complete the Trial in Spl.S.C.No.274 of 2024, within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5167 of 202526.02.2025Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking ordermnPage 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5167 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnTo 1. The Special Court for POCSO Act, at Coimbatore. 2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.O.P.No.5167 of 202526.02.2025Page 8 of 8