Madras High Court
Jahangir vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 6 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15671 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 06.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15671 of 2022
Jahangir ..Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
South Gate, Madurai City ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.503 of 2023 in Spl.S.C.No.
101 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial
of cases under POCSO Act, Madurai dated 25.05.2022 and set aside the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mariappan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivakumar
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15671 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the
records in Cr.M.P.No.503 of 2023 in Spl.S.C.No.101 of 2020 on the file
of the Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO
Act, Madurai dated 25.05.2022 and set aside the same.
2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that this
petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the
POCSO Act, Madurai dismissing the petition filed in Crl.M.P.No.503 of
2022 in Spl.S.C.No.101 of 2020 on 25.05.2022.
3. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that
the petition in Crl.M.P.No.503 of 2022 was filed under Section 311 of
Cr.P.C to recall PW.1 to PW.4, however, the learned Sessions Judge had
dismissed the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15671 of 2022
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that
it is a case under POCSO Act and the victim is aged about 10 years. The
learned Counsel for the accused did not choose to cross examine the
witnesses even though they were readily available before the Court.
Therefore, the said petition was dismissed. He would further submit that
L.W 5 to 7 were already examined and L.W.8 to 17 are going to be
examined on 19.09.2022.
5. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Madurai, it
is found that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinoth
Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015(2) SCC Criminal 269 has
been relied by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Session Judge also
relied on the judgement of Prabhu @ [email protected] Abdul Lazeez Vs. State
Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2019(2)MWN Crl.171 and State of
Kerala Vs.Rasheed, (2019)1 MLJ Page 326.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15671 of 2022
6. It is to be noted that in POCSO Act cases, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court had given guidelines to the Courts dealing with the POCSO Act
cases to dispose the cases within the limited time. Also in the same
guideline, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the High Court that
the Special Judges of the POCSO Act cases shall not given cases other
than the POCSO Act cases to enable the Sessions Court to dispose the
caes without much delay.
7. In the case of Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab the Hon’ble
Supreme Court had directed the High Courts of all the States to circulate
that judgment to all the Judges in the District Judiciary in the State.
Accordingly this Judgement was circulated through out the State of
Tamil Nadu with a direction that trial judges shall not grant adjournment
and the delay in trial will invite actions against the trial Judge for causing
delay in the trial. Therefore, the Sessions Judges are doubly cautious
regarding dilatory tactics employed by the counsel appearing for the
accused in cases of this nature.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15671 of 2022
8. When the learned Sessions Judge is struck to the guidelines
issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, filing of petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C, seeking to set aside the order cannot be entertained. It
amounts to judicial indiscipline in not following the direction of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court .
9. Hence this petition is dismissed.
06.09.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
aav
To
1. The Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of
cases under POCSO Act, Madurai
2.The Sub Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
South Gate, Madurai City
3 .The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15671 of 2022
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15671 of 2022
06.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
