Crl.R.C.No.1003 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.1003 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.10437 of 2022
G.Rajagopal ... Petitioner
..vs..
State rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
W.26 AWPS Police Station,
Ashok Nagar, Chennai. ... Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C
to call for the records and set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.1411 of 2021
on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under
POSCO Act, Chennai by order dated 19.04.2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Suresh
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page No.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1003 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging the order dated 19.04.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1411 of 2021 by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under POSCO Act, Chennai.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
3.The respondent/police registered a case in Crime No.5 of 2021 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 11(i)(ii)(iii)(iv) r/w 12 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 354(A) and 509 IPC and Sections 67 and 67(A) of Information Technology Act, 2000. After investigation, a charge sheet was laid before the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under POSCO Act, Chennai, The learned Page No.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1003 of 2022 Judge had taken up the case on file in Spl.S.C.No.139 of 2021. During the pendency of the sessions case, the petitioner, by invoking Section 218 of Code of Criminal Procedure, filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1411 of 2021 before the Court below and the said petition was dismissed. Challenging the said order the petitioner has preferred the present revision case.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are several distinct offences, but the trial Court clubbed all the offences together and tried to frame all the charges together and tried all the charges as joint trial. If that be the case, much prejudice would be caused to the petitioner and therefore, the distinct offences should be charged separately and cases should be tried separately. He further submitted that some of incidents are barred by limitation and though the learned trial Judge invoked Section 473 Cr.P.C, there is no continuous cause of action and therefore, the observation made by the learned trial Judge by invoking Section 473 Cr.P.C also exists with regard to limitation. Page No.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1003 of 2022 Therefore, the order of the trial Court is to be set aside and the learned trial Judge may be directed to frame separate charges for the distinct offences and all the charges have to be tried separately and all the cases be tried separately.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the charges have not yet been framed and only charge sheet alone was filed and it is premature to invoke Section 218 Cr.P.C and therefore, the revision is to be dismissed.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner was charged for the offences under Sections 11(i)(ii)(iii)(iv) r/w 12 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 354(A) and 509 IPC and Sections 67 and 67(A) of Information and Technology Act, 2000. After investigation, the respondent/Police laid a charge sheet before the Court below. The Court below is yet to hear the prosecution and to frame the charges. Even before hearing the prosecution, the petitioner, with so Page No.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1003 of 2022 much anxiety, has filed the above petition by invoking Section 218 Cr.P.C. and the trial Judge went through the materials and referred several judgments and also invoked Section and has dismissed the petition.
7. On a careful perusal of the records, this Court finds that by invoking Section 218 Cr.P.C by the petitioner is premature and the petitioner has not allowed the trial Court to apply its mind and frame charges and even after framing charges, if any, grievance is against that, and if the petitioner is prejudiced with regard to framing of charges, he can challenge the said order. Even the petitioner has not filed the petition to discharges him from the commission of particular offence. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the charges have to be framed separately for the distinct offences. Without allowing the trial Court to apply its mind to frame the charges and that there are no materials to show to testify the order of the trial Court, that what would be the stand taken by the trial Court and this Court finds that by invoking Section 218 Page No.5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1003 of 2022 Cr.P.C by the trial Court is a premature and though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are 8 counts in the POCSO Act offence and from the order passed by the trial Court, the materials do not show the cause of action for each count, whether it is beyond one year or beyond the period of limitation. So without materials this Court cannot club together or show that all the charges would be framed by the trial Court.
8. Under these circumstances, this Court finds that by invoking Section 218 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has filed the petition before the trial Court which is unnecessary and unwarranted at the stage of pending cases for framing charges. However, whatever the grievance, the trial Court is directed to give opportunity to all the parties and both the counsel before framing charges in accordance with law.
9.In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and order dated 19.04.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1411 of 2021 by the Page No.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1003 of 2022 learned Special Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under POSCO Act, Chennai is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.09.2022 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order ms To
1.The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under POSCO Act, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police, W.26 AWPS Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1003 of 2022 P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ms Crl.R.C.No.1003 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.10437 of 2022 06.09.2022 Page No.8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis