Madras High Court
S.Vijay vs State Rep. By on 28 October, 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28/10/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.RC(MD)No.385 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.4013 of 2021
S.Vijay : Petitioner/Petitioner/A4
Vs.
State rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Srivaikundarm,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.28 of 2018) : Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section
397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the
records relating to the order passed in Crl.M.P No.159 of
2021 in Spl. SC No.11 of 2020, dated 16/04/2021 on the file
of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under
POCSO Act, Thoothukudi and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Srinivasaragavan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Manikandan
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O R D E R
This criminal revision has been preferred seeking
to set aside the order, dated 16/04/2021 made in Cr.M.P
No.159 of 2021 in Special SC No.11 of 2020 on the file of
the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO
Act, Thoothukudi.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The victim girl was in love with A1 for about four
years. Under the guise of marring and on the false promise
of marrying the victim girl, A1 committed penetrative
assault upon the victim girl in various places on several
times. Because of that, the victim girl has become
pregnant. When she demanded marriage, A1 forced her to
abort her child by taking pills. When that was brought to
the notice of his father, A2 to A6, who are the family
members of A1 abused the victim girl in filthy language and
criminally intimidated her. Now A1 is facing the charges
under section 5(1),(j),(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and
section 506(ii) IPC. A2 to A6 are facing the charges for
the offences under sections 294(b) and 506(i)IPC. Pending
trial process, the petitioner, who is arrayed as A4 moved
Crl.MP No.159 of 2021 before the trial court seeking
discharge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.That application was resisted by the respondent.
4.After hearing both sides, that application came to
be dismissed by the trial court, by order, dated
16/04/2021.
5.Now challenging the above said order, this revision
has been preferred by the petitioner on the ground that
only bald allegation has been made against this petitioner
and no specific overtact attracting the ingredients of the
offences under sections 294(b) and 506(i)IPC has been
mentioned. So only on the basis of the bald allegation, it
may not be proper for the prosecution to subject him to
face the trial. He would further submit that the petitioner
was selected for Uniformed Service and because of pendency
of the case, he was not given appointment order. This
ground must be taken into account for considering the
culpability of the petitioner into the offence.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would rely upon many judgments starting from the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of
N.S.Madhanagopal and another Vs. K.Lalitha (Criminal Appeal
No.1759 of 2022, dated 10/10/2022) and the order of this
court in the case of S.Subathra and three ohers Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.Palanikumar (Crl.OP(MD)No.8275 of 2018, dated 10/03/2020)
and in the case of S.P.Seshamanikandan Vs. State and
another (Crl.OP No.15587 of 2015, dated 15/10/2018) for the
purpose of argument that to attract the offence under
section 294(b) IPC, the ingredients as stated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said judgment must be
clearly mentioned in the final report. Similarly for the
offence under section 506(i) IPC also, the ingredients must
be clearly spelt out and in the absence of such ingredient,
the final report itself is wrong. The trial court, without
applying its mind, has dismissed the discharge petition.
7.Prima facie materials have been collected to show
that A1 is the biological father of the victim girl. Now
this petitioner be the brother of A1. He is not directly
connected with the offence, that was alleged to have been
committed by A1. But however, reading of the statement of
the victim girl recorded under section 164(3) Cr.P.C shows
that when the issue was brought to the notice of A2, who is
the father of A1, originally he agreed for settlement, but
later refused. So a panchayat was convened in a temple. In
the panchayat, the accused persons were present and in that
talk, she was abused and criminally intimidated. This is
the statement of the victim girl.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.Even though, the specific word, that is alleged to
have been uttered by the petitioner is not mentioned by her
either in the course of the statement or in the final
report, the fact remains that this petitioner was also
present in the panchayat, that was arranged for resolving
the issue. What happened on that particular date is a
matter for evidence. So even though, the petitioner heavily
relied upon the above said judgments and the principles to
be adopted has been set out, the factual circumstances in
this case must also be taken into account.
9.As mentioned earlier, in the alleged panchayat,
that took place on a particular date, the above said
abusive words and criminal intimidation alleged to have
been committed. So it requires a thorough trial process.
Simply because the petitioner has been selected for
Uniformed Service, that will not give any right to him to
be discharged from the criminal proceedings.
10.In the order passed by the trial court, it has
been mentioned that 19 witnesses have been examined by the
Investigating Officer. Finding that enough material has
been collected during the course of investigation to
implicate this petitioner also in the above said abusive
and criminal intimidation, the trial court dismissed the
petition. So, I am of the considered view that this is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
a fittest case to discharge the petitioner from the
criminal prosecution. He has to undergo the trial process.
11.I find no illegality or irregularity in the
order of the trial court in dismissing the discharge
petition.
12.In the result, this criminal revision is
dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition
is closed.
28/10/2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To,
1.The Special Court for Exclusive
Trial of Cases under POCSO Act,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Srivaikundarm,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
Crl.RC(MD)No.385 of 2021
28/10/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
