Madras High Court
Chinna Manickam vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 4 October, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.22498 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN,
Crl.O.P.No.22498 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.No.15698 of 2023
1. Chinna Manickam
2. Suganesh
3. Mahendran ... Petitioners
/vs/
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
rep. By Inspector of Police,
Thoppur Police Station,
Dharmapuri District
2. Ravi ... Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash the charge sheet/final report dated
29.06.2017 filed in Spl.S.C.No.42 of 2017 on the file of the learned Fast
Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri.
For petitioner ... Mr. R.Selvakumar
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22498 of 2023
For respondents ... Mr. S. Udaya Kumar,
Government Advocate (crl.side)
for R1
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet
in Spl.S.C.No.42 of 2017 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court,
Dharmapuri.
2. On 28.02.2017, Thoppur Police registered F.I.R in Crime NO.56 of
2017 on the complaint given by one Ravi S/o. Dhanapal alleging that the
petitioners herein have kidnapped his minor daughter, who was pursuing 12 th
standard. Consequence to this complaint, investigation was taken up by the
police and final report was filed on 22.06.2017 and the case made over to the
Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri in Spl.S.C.No.42 of 2017. The Trial
is almost completed and matter is at the stage of questioning the accused
regarding incriminating evidence as spoken by the witnesses under Section
313 Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22498 of 2023
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the
prosecution witnesses, who are defacto complainant, his wife and daughter,
who is the victim of the alleged crime invariably deposed that the first
accused and the minor girl were in love and they got marry and presently they
are blessed with 3 children and living happily. In the said circumstances, the
learned counsel submits that if the trial is allowed to be completed and the
accused are found guilty, it will be miscarriage of justice and a well settled
peaceful family will get disturbed and prayed that in exercise of inherent
power of High Court to meet the ends of justice, the prosecution against the
petitioners may be allowed to be quashed.
4. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) for R1 submitted that
D.Ravi, who is the defacto complainant and father of the victim girl, in the
cross examination admitted that his daughter on her own consent married the
first accused. The victim girl had attained majority on the day, when she was
examined and deposed that on the date of occurrence, she has completed 16
years of age and she voluntarily left the maternal home with the accused and
got married. Even after lodging the complaint by her father, she continued to
live with the first accused and presently, she is mother of three children.
Specifically, she has deposed that she was not kidnapped by the first accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22498 of 2023
and she went along with him on her own. She has stated that her date of
birth is 10.06.2000. The alleged incident has taken place on 26.02.2017.
Section 366-A IPC reads as follows:
“ Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl
under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do
any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is
likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illiit intercourse
with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.”
From the evidence, it is clear that the girl was less than 18 years old on the
date of occurrence. However, there is no material to show that she was forced
or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. The first accused in this
case has married the victim girl and living with her peacefully and that has
been spoken by all the witnesses examined by the prosecution. With the
available evidence, further proceedings by the Trial Court will only be an
empty formality and any order passed adverse to the petitioners will not only
affect the petitioners/accused, but also the victim girl. The judgment cannot
be penalising the victim and her children.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22498 of 2023
5. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the
inherent power to prevent miscarriage of justice and give quietus to the issue
by quashing the complaint/charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.42 of 2017 pending on
the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri.
6. Accordingly, Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
complaint/charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.42 of 2017 pending on the file of the
Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri is hereby quashed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No 04.10.2023
mrp
To
The Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Mahila Court,
Dharmapuri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22498 of 2023
G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
mrp
Crl.O.P.No.22498 of 2023
04.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
