High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.9916 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 03.04.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.9916 of 2025andCrl.M.P.Nos.6577 and 6579 of 2025Saravanan ... PetitionerVs1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Arni, Tiruvannamalai District. (Crime No.3 of 2023)2. XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX ... RespondentsCriminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.N.S., to call for the records of the case pending in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2024 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.C.P.PalanichamyFor Respondents: Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R11/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9916 of 2025O R D E RThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2024 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.03.2023, when the victim was in the class room attending Mathematics class, the petitioner being the Mathematics Teacher, sexually assaulted her. Therefore, on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered the First Information Report in Crime No.3 of 2023 for the offences under Section 354A(1)(i) of IPC and Sections 9(1) and 10 of the POCSO Act. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court. Now, the petitioner is facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2024. 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9916 of 20253. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections Section 354A(1)(i) of IPC and Sections 9(1) and 10 of the POCSO Act, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2024 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that even according to the victim, the petitioner had sat near the victim and pinched her chins and touched her lips. He further submitted that the other students of the same class room deposed that no such occurrence had taken place. Hence he prayed to quash the same. It must be pointed out here that the said contradiction, which can be raised before the trial Court during the trial by way of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, cannot be a ground to quash the entire proceedings at this stage. 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9916 of 20255. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.6. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials placed on record.7. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No3 of 2023 for the offences under Sections Section 354A(1)(i) of IPC and Sections 9(1) and 10 of the POCSO Act. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2024 by the trial Court and it is pending. To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner filed the present petition. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgement reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9916 of 2025Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have 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 as against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.9. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9916 of 202510. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet, 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 consititue certain offences complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not and whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial. 11. Further, this Court cannot observe at this stage that the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious. Whether the criminal proceeding is malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this state. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9916 of 2025Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2024 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 03.04.2025Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation/Yes/Nokv7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9916 of 2025To1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Arni, Tiruvannamalai District.2. The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9916 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.kvCrl.O.P.No.9916 of 202503.04.20259/9