High Court · 2025

Crl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10.06.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023and Crl.M.P.No.20273 of 2023M.D.Senthil Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.1. The State Rep. byThe Inspector of Police,W-19, All Women's Police Station,Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.2. AiswaryaR2 Suo Motu impleaded as per dated 08.01.2024 inCrl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for records and set aside the order dated 26.04.2023 of framing charges in Spl.S.C.No.31 of 2022 pending before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai. For Petitioner: Mr.A.Ashwin KumarFor RespondentsFor R1: Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)For R2: Mr.R.GanesanPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023ORDERThis Criminal Revision Case has been preferred as against the framing of charges in Special S.C.No.31 of 2022 on the file of the learned Session Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the victims are sister and brother. They were born to Jayakumar and Asha. Due do misunderstanding, they got separated and obtained decree of divorce in the year 2006. Thereafter, their mother got married to one Senthilkumar. Even after their mother's re-marriage, they were living in their mother's parents house. The said Senthilkumar was working in ship company as a Marine Superintendent and employed in Singapore. Therefore, the victims were sent to Singapore to stay with their mother and the said Senthilkumar, during the month of April, 2008. At that juncture, the first victim was aged about 13 years and the second victim was aged about 8 years. 3.During their stay at Singapore, the said Senthilkumar had committed sexual assault on the victim on several occasions. He also threatened them to not disclose it to anybody and if they did disclose, then they Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023would face the consequences. Therefore, they could not lodge compliant. Thereafter at their insistence, their grandparents brought them to India in the year 2009. Therefore, their mother Asha and the said Senthilkumar also transferred to Chennai and stayed in the same house. During their stay in Chennai, the said Senthilkumar used to take the first victim in car from the School and committed sexual assault on her. During the year 2013 also, when the grandmother was taking treatment, the said Senthilkumar had committed penetrative sexual assault on the first victim. He also threatened her not to disclose it to anybody, and if disclosed, he will finish her life. He also committed sexual assault on the second victim also, who is the brother of the first victim. The said Senthilkuamr sexually assaulted them continuously from the year 2008. 4.On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.7 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 6, 5(l), 5(n), 12 and 11(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act”) and Section 506(ii) of IPC. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in Spl.S.C.No.31 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 6, 5(l), 5(n), 9(m), 9(n) & 10 of the POCSO Act and Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023Sections 354A, 376(3) & 506(ii) of IPC. Before framing charges, the petitioner filed discharge petition and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.820 of 2023. Since the same was pending without any interim order, the trial Court framed charges as against the accused viz., Senthilkumar. Hence the petitioner filed the present revision. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Special Court ought not to have framed charge under the POCSO Act, since the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner before the enactment of the POCSO Act viz., before 2012. The first victim attains majority in the year 2014. Even according to the first victim, the petitioner had committed penetrative sexual assault after 2014 and as such, no charge can be made under the POCSO Act, since the first victim attained majority. As far as the second victim is concerned, the accused committed sexual assault on him before the enactment of the POCSO Act viz., before 2012. Therefore, no charge can be framed as against the petitioner under the POCSO Act. If no charge can be framed under the POCSO Act, the trial Court being the Special Court for POCSO Act, cannot have jurisdiction to frame the charges. Hence, he prayed to quash the charges framed as against the petitioner. Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2274 of 20236.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.7.On perusal of the records, it is revealed that when the victims 1 & 2 were residing in Singapore in the year 2008, the accused had committed sexual assault on both the victims. It continues till 2014, even after they shifted their residence from Singapore to Chennai, while staying along with the victims. On perusal of the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., both the victims revealed that the accused had continuously committed penetrative sexual assault even after the first victim attained majority from the year 2008. Therefore, the trial Court rightly framed charges under the POCSO Act as against the accused. Though the POCSO Act was enacted in the year 2012, the accused had committed sexual assault on both the victim from the year 2008 and even after the first victim attains majority, continuously. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the charges framed as against the accused and this revision is liable to be dismissed. 8.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. The trial Court viz., the learned Session Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, is directed to proceed with the trial in Special S.C.No.31 of 2022 as against the accused and conduct trial by fixing date on day-to-day basis and complete the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed10.06.2025(2/2) Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking orderrtsPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023To 1.The Session Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai2.The Inspector of Police,W-19, All Women's Police Station,Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.3. The Public Prosecutor,Madras High Court,Chennai. Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,rtsCrl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023and Crl.M.P.No.20273 of 202310.06.2025(½) Page 8 of 8

Crl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10.06.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023and Crl.M.P.No.20273 of 2023M.D.Senthil Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.1. The State Rep. byThe Inspector of Police,W-19, All Women's Police Station,Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.2. AiswaryaR2 Suo Motu impleaded as per dated 08.01.2024 inCrl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for records and set aside the order dated 26.04.2023 of framing charges in Spl.S.C.No.31 of 2022 pending before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai. For Petitioner: Mr.A.Ashwin KumarFor RespondentsFor R1: Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)For R2: Mr.R.GanesanPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023ORDERThis Criminal Revision Case has been preferred as against the framing of charges in Special S.C.No.31 of 2022 on the file of the learned Session Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the victims are sister and brother. They were born to Jayakumar and Asha. Due do misunderstanding, they got separated and obtained decree of divorce in the year 2006. Thereafter, their mother got married to one Senthilkumar. Even after their mother's re-marriage, they were living in their mother's parents house. The said Senthilkumar was working in ship company as a Marine Superintendent and employed in Singapore. Therefore, the victims were sent to Singapore to stay with their mother and the said Senthilkumar, during the month of April, 2008. At that juncture, the first victim was aged about 13 years and the second victim was aged about 8 years. 3.During their stay at Singapore, the said Senthilkumar had committed sexual assault on the victim on several occasions. He also threatened them to not disclose it to anybody and if they did disclose, then they Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023would face the consequences. Therefore, they could not lodge compliant. Thereafter at their insistence, their grandparents brought them to India in the year 2009. Therefore, their mother Asha and the said Senthilkumar also transferred to Chennai and stayed in the same house. During their stay in Chennai, the said Senthilkumar used to take the first victim in car from the School and committed sexual assault on her. During the year 2013 also, when the grandmother was taking treatment, the said Senthilkumar had committed penetrative sexual assault on the first victim. He also threatened her not to disclose it to anybody, and if disclosed, he will finish her life. He also committed sexual assault on the second victim also, who is the brother of the first victim. The said Senthilkuamr sexually assaulted them continuously from the year 2008. 4.On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.7 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 6, 5(l), 5(n), 12 and 11(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act”) and Section 506(ii) of IPC. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in Spl.S.C.No.31 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 6, 5(l), 5(n), 9(m), 9(n) & 10 of the POCSO Act and Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023Sections 354A, 376(3) & 506(ii) of IPC. Before framing charges, the petitioner filed discharge petition and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.820 of 2023. Since the same was pending without any interim order, the trial Court framed charges as against the accused viz., Senthilkumar. Hence the petitioner filed the present revision. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Special Court ought not to have framed charge under the POCSO Act, since the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner before the enactment of the POCSO Act viz., before 2012. The first victim attains majority in the year 2014. Even according to the first victim, the petitioner had committed penetrative sexual assault after 2014 and as such, no charge can be made under the POCSO Act, since the first victim attained majority. As far as the second victim is concerned, the accused committed sexual assault on him before the enactment of the POCSO Act viz., before 2012. Therefore, no charge can be framed as against the petitioner under the POCSO Act. If no charge can be framed under the POCSO Act, the trial Court being the Special Court for POCSO Act, cannot have jurisdiction to frame the charges. Hence, he prayed to quash the charges framed as against the petitioner. Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2274 of 20236.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.7.On perusal of the records, it is revealed that when the victims 1 & 2 were residing in Singapore in the year 2008, the accused had committed sexual assault on both the victims. It continues till 2014, even after they shifted their residence from Singapore to Chennai, while staying along with the victims. On perusal of the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., both the victims revealed that the accused had continuously committed penetrative sexual assault even after the first victim attained majority from the year 2008. Therefore, the trial Court rightly framed charges under the POCSO Act as against the accused. Though the POCSO Act was enacted in the year 2012, the accused had committed sexual assault on both the victim from the year 2008 and even after the first victim attains majority, continuously. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the charges framed as against the accused and this revision is liable to be dismissed. 8.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. The trial Court viz., the learned Session Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, is directed to proceed with the trial in Special S.C.No.31 of 2022 as against the accused and conduct trial by fixing date on day-to-day basis and complete the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed10.06.2025(2/2) Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking orderrtsPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023To 1.The Session Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai2.The Inspector of Police,W-19, All Women's Police Station,Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.3. The Public Prosecutor,Madras High Court,Chennai. Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,rtsCrl.R.C.No.2274 of 2023and Crl.M.P.No.20273 of 202310.06.2025(½) Page 8 of 8