Madras High Court
G.Rajagopal vs State Rep.By on 6 September, 2022
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
