Madras High Court
S.Saravanavel vs The State Represented By on 23 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl. O.P. No. 632 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl. O.P. No. 632 of 2024
and
Crl. M.P. Nos. 430, 432 of 2024 & 4731 of 2025
S.Saravanavel ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
SRMC Range, Chennai - 600 122.
2. XXX (Minor)
3. Sivaranjana
(R3 suo motu impleaded as per order
dated 21.02.2024 in Crl.O.P.No.632 of 2024
and Crl.M.P.Nos.430 & 432 of 2024) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to
call for the records and quash the proceedings in Special S.C.No.175/2023
pending on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under
POCSO Act at Chengalpattu for offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 354,
354(A) (2), 506(2) of IPC and under Sections 9(l) 9(n), 10, 11(1), 11(5), 12 of
POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 1998.
Page 1 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
Crl. O.P. No. 632 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr. G. Arun Kumar
For Respondents : Mr. R. Vinothraja
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1
Mr.T.John Alexander for R3
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Spl. S.C. No. 175 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for
Executive Trial of Cases in POCSO Act, Chengalpattu.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the complaint was lodged by
the second respondent namely victim on 24.06.2022. She is living with her
parents, grandfather and grandmother in the same house. Her father is suffering
from mental disordered and as such, her grandparents used to scold her with
filthy language. Her grandfather has a habit of consuming alcohol and he used
to drink daily and scold her mother with abusive language. It is alleged that her
grandfather used to touch her inappropriately and he has also threatened not to
disclose it to anybody. Therefore, the second respondent has suffered mental
torture. While being so, on 23.06.2022 her grandfather had groped the thigh of
the victim girl and the same was informed to her mother. On the next day it was
questioned by her mother and as such, her grandfather attacked her with wooden
log and also abused her in filthy language.
3. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent registered the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 354, 354(A) (2),
506(2) of IPC and under Sections 9(l) 9(n), 10, 11(1), 11(5), 12 of POCSO Act.
After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the
same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in Spl. S.C.No.175 of 2023 in
which the petitioner is arrayed as accused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is a retired
Chief Engineer of Highways Department. His wife is the Principal of
Government College. They have one son and one daughter. They had purchased
several properties in their name and also in the name of their children. Their
daughter got married and is settled at USA. Their son is a mentally disordered
person and he is taken care by the petitioner and his wife. While being so, one
of their property was settled in favour of their daughter and due to which, there
is a property dispute.
5. Infact, the petitioner and his wife are maintaining their son and his
entire family namely the victim and her mother. After the marriage between the
petitioner’s son and his wife, they gave birth to the victim. Without even
looking after the victim, her mother used to go for acting. Therefore, from the
childhood of the victim, the petitioner and his wife are taking care of her. While
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
being so, in the year 2018, the third respondent was arrested and remanded to
judicial custody by anti-vise squad police under The Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act. When it was questioned by the petitioner and his wife, she
abused them in unparlimentary words. Since the petitioner’s son is mentally
disordered, the petitioner and his wife’s daily life is miserable at the hands of
the mother of the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner and his wife
insisted her to go out from the house.
6. In order to escape from the said proceedings, she had done nasty
drama which resulted in complaint by the petitioner’s wife. She was also issued
CSR. Further, in order to grab the properties from the petitioner and his wife,
the victim’s mother had done all sorts of illegal activities which also resulted in
complaint, for which CSR was issued in C.S.R.No.1414 of 2020 dated
12.10.2020. Further, the victim’s mother had also lodged complaint under
Domestic Violence Act in D.V.C. No.15 of 2021 as against the petitioner and
his wife. Thereafter, the torture was continued and as such, the petitioner has
also previously lodged a complaint under Domestic Violence Act in
DVC.No.11 of 2021 as against the victim’s mother i.e., daughter-in-law.
Further, the petitioner also lodged complaint on 29.05.2021 before the Inspector
of Police, Mangadu Police station and he was issued C.S.R.No.863 of 2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
7. While being so, the first petitioner had executed settlement deed
dated 08.07.2021 in favour of his daughter registered vide document No.5780 of
2021 in respect of the property situated in Gerugambakkam in which the
victims’s mother is squatting illegally. In order to wreck vengeance, the victim’s
mother has also lodged complaint under the Domestic Violence Act in D.V.C.
No.15 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudhu against her
own husband, petitioner, his wife and his daughter. She also filed suit in
O.S.No.25 of 2022 for injunction before the Civil Court. Therefore, on the
instigation of the victim’s mother, the victim lodged the present complaint with
completely false allegations.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is
nothing but a malafide prosecution. According to the victim, the last occurrence
had taken place on 23.06.2022. Her mother came to know about the said
occurrence on the same day at 11.00 p.m. However, it was not questioned on the
very same day. It was questioned by next day i.e., 24.06.2022 for which she was
assaulted by the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner filed complaint under the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the
Tribunal and the same was ordered in favour of the petitioner. All these facts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
were completely suppressed and a false complaint as against the petitioner was
foisted with unnatural allegations. There is a lot of contradiction between the
complaint, 161 statements and the statement recorded under Section 164 of
CrPC. Infact, in the complaint, no such averments made and it was later
improved while giving statement under Section 161 of CrPC and as such, the
entire proceedings cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed.
9. In support of his contention, he relied upon several judgments of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and this Court.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent would
submit that the contradictions between the witnesses cannot be considered by
this Court under Section 482 of CrPC. It is a matter for the trial before the trial
Court. There are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the
offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 354, 354(A) (2), 506(2) of IPC and under
Sections 9(l) 9(n), 10, 11(1), 11(5), 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 4 of
TNPHW Act, 1998. He also relied upon the statement recorded under Section
164 of Cr.P.C., in which, the victim categorically stated that the petitioner was
groping victim's thighs with the intention of sexual assault.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
11. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 in the case of Satyajit
Pandurang and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others.
12. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first
respondent submitted that the petitioner is the sole accused and there are
specific averments and also materials to constitute the offences under Sections
294(b), 324, 354, 354(A) (2), 506(2) of IPC and under Sections 9(l) 9(n), 10,
11(1), 11(5), 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 1998. The
grounds raised by the petitioner cannot be considered to quash the entire
proceedings.
13. Heard and perused the materials available on record.
14. The petitioner is the grandfather of the victim. The victim lodged
complaint alleging that the petitioner had groped her thighs, abused her and
assaulted her mother. After registration of FIR, the petitioner was granted
anticipatory bail on the ground that there is a dispute between the petitioner and
the third respondent herein with regard to the property. Infact, the petitioner and
his wife had already lodged several complaints which resulted in Crime No.850
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Mangadu Police Station.
Therefore, the present complaint is nothing but a false complaint foisted against
the petitioner and it is clear abuse of process of law.
15. Further, at the time of issuing notice, this Court granted interim
stay of all further proceedings in Spl. S.C. No.175 of 2023 on the file of the
Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Caes under POCSO Act at Chengalpattu,
after examining the victim girl. This Court, by an order dated 21.02.2024, has
observed as follows:-
“4. On 18.01.2024, this Court had an one-to-one
interaction with the victim child. She reiterated what was told by
her in the complaint. However, I found that the victim girl was
repeating the complaint out of some influence/fear. Therefore, I
decided to go through the materials and take a decision.
5. I had the advantage of going through the entire
materials. There is some matrimonial dispute and as a result, the
mother of the victim girl was repeatedly having wordy quarrels
with the in-laws and particularly with the father-in-law. The
statment recorded from LW-4 and LW-5 clearly shows that on
24.06.2022, there was a wordy quarrel as usual between the victim
girl's mother and the petitioner. That ultimately led to some
skirmish. This was the cause of action when the complaint was
given to the police on 27.06.2022. However, while giving the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
complaint, yet another allegation was made as if the petitioner had
groped the thighs of the victim girl.
6. The above allegation, on the face of it seems to be
unbelievable since even the victim girl states that she is not even in
talking terms with her grandparents for more than a year. She was
staying with her mother in the first floor. Everytime, the arguments
will revolve around the property dispute between the daughter-in-
law and the father-in-law. Hence, the allegation made by the
victim girl is very unnatural and it cannot be ruled out that LW-2
could have had an influence on the victim girl to make her come
up with such a statement.
7.This Court also had the advantage of viewing the
recording of what actually happened on 24.06.2022. There was a
wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the daughter-in-law.
When this was going on, the victim's mother has actually said that
the grandparents are not even calling and talking with the
granddaugher. This was made out to be one of the important issue
during the arguments. If that is so, it is too artificial and unnatural
that the petitioner will be involved in groping the thighs of the
victim girl when has not even called and spoken with the victim
girl for more than a year.
8. It is clear from the materials placed before this Court
that there are various proceedings that are pending between the
parties right from the year 2020 onwards. DVC No.15 of 2021, is
pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur. O.S.No.25
of 2022, is pending before the District Munsif Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
Sriperumbudur. There are two FIRs registered in Crime No.850 of
2021 by Mangadu Police Station, Crime No.511 of 2022, before
the same Police Station and in both these FIRs, the mother of the
victim girl viz., Sivaranjana is shown as an accused person. In
none of these cases, there is any allegation to indicate that the
petitioner is trying to abuse the victim girl”
In pursuant to the order granted by this Court, the entire trial has been stayed on
the file of the trial Court.
16. When this matter is coming for final hearing, this Court ordered
for appearance of the victim and the third respondent before this Court. In the
chamber, this Court examined the victim and the third respondent. The victim
deposed before this Court that there is a property dispute between the petitioner
and the third respondent. They are depending upon the petitioner in all aspects,
since her father is a mentally disordered person and right now, he is staying in
their home under the care of the petitioner. Though she made allegation as
against the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, she
did not even whisper before this Court about the said allegation as against the
petitioner. Though this Court specifically asked her about misbehaviour by the
petitioner, the victim kept mum and did not say anything about the allegations
levelled against the petitioner to attract the offences under the POCSO Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
17. The third respondent also deposed before this Court that there is a
suit pending in respect of the property which was already settled in favour of the
petitioner’s daughter. Further, the domestic violence complaint is also pending
as against the third respondent as well the petitioner. Though, she had
knowledge about the alleged incident, she did not questioned the same on the
same day. It was questioned by her on the next day i.e., 24.06.2022. At that
juncture, the petitioner attacked her. It seems that on 24.06.2022, there was
wordy quarrel between them and due to which, the petitioner and his wife
lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police, Inspector of Police, Mangadu
Police Station, alleging continuous torture by the third respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
18. That apart, the petitioner also lodged complaint on 24.06.2022
before the Inspector of Police, Mangadu Police Station which resulted in
registration of FIR in Crime No.511 of 2022 as against the third respondent for
the offences punishable under Sections 294b, 323 and 506(i) of IPC. The said
FIR has been registered for the very same occurrence that took place on
24.06.2022. Therefore, the present proceedings which is impugned in this
petition is nothing but after thought and only to extract property from the
petitioner. Therefore, the present proceeding is nothing but a false complaint
and clear abuse of process of law.
19. The very complaint itself does not whisper about the occurrence
that took place on 23.06.2022. In the statement recorded under Section 161
CrPC dated 27.06.2022, the said alleged occurrence dated 23.06.2022 was
mentioned. Subsequently, the victim’s statement was recorded under Section
164 of CrPC. It is complete exaggeration that the petitioner was abusing her for
the past three years and her grandmother also asked her to dance to the tune of
the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
20. Further, on perusal of records, there are circumstances for which
the present false case has been foised as against the petitioner. In this regard, the
learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Haji Iqbal @ Bala and State of Haryana reported in
2023 SCC Online SC 946. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted
hereunder: -
“15. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes befor the Court invoking
either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal
proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such
proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted
with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with
care and a little more closely. We say so because once the
complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an
ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all
the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the
averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose
the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence.
Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose
of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute
the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case
over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while
exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or
Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the
stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall
circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as
well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.
Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been
registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such
circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes
importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance
out of private or personal grudge as alleged.
The above proposition was reiterated by the Apex Court
in a case between Mohmood Ali and State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 950.”
The above judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
21. Further, the perusal of the birthday greetings sent by the victim to
the petitioner on his 76th birthday, revealed the love and affection that the
petitioner has for the victim. All along, the victim praised the love and affection
of the petitioner and she has also given meaning of grandfather and
grandmother. The birthday greeting was given only in the year 2022. When it is
being so, the third respondent has insisted the victim to lodge the present false
complaint as against her own grandfather. The petitioner and his wife were
holding very respectable position in the society and have earned several
properties. One of the property was settled in favour of their daughter has made
the third respondent to lodge the present false complaint through the victim.
22. The present case is a classic case for misusing the POCSO Act
that too as against aged grandfather. It is also evident that when the said
occurrence was informed to the third respondent by the victim on 23.06.2022,
the third respondent has questioned the same only on next day. It is quite clear
that no prudent person will keep quite or sleep overnight after hearing such
serious incident. Therefore, it is crystal clear that on the next day i.e., on
24.06.2022, there was a property dispute with regard to the property which was
settled in favour of the petitioner's daughter for which, the third respondent
instigated the victim to lodge a false complaint as against the petitioner, that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
too after the complaint lodged by the petitioner before the jurisdictional police
i.e., Inspector of Police, Mangadu Police Station.
23. Even before that, the petitioner and his wife lodged several
complaints and also lodged complaint under Domestic Violence Act in
D.V.C.No.11 of 2021 as against the third respondent and it is pending on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur. Thereafter, the third respondent
also lodged complaint under Domestic Violent Act in D.V.C.No.15 of 2021 and
the same is also pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.
24. That apart, the third respondent also filed a suit in O.S. No. 25 of
2022 to set aside the settlement deed executed by the petitioner in favour of her
daughter along with injunction and it is also pending before the Civil Court.
Infact, on the complaint lodged by the petitioner under the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 in which the Tribunal has
passed order dated 12.10.2022, thereby restrained the third respondent and her
family members from disturbing the petitioner and his wife. Further, the
Tribunal directed the Inspector of Police, Mangadu Police Station to provide
adequate police protection, if needed. It was also confirmed by the appellate
authority namely District Collector by an order dated 29.04.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
25. None of the complaint lodged by the third respondent, whispers
about the alleged occurrence which was allegedly has been taken place for the
past several years. The third respondent is claiming herself as lawyer, actress
and beautician etc. Therefore, she knows how to draft a complaint to cause more
torture to the petitioner in order to settle the civil dispute in respect of the
property.
26. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in
State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan lal and others reported in 1992
Supp(1) SCC 335.
"102..........
...................
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with malafide and/or where the proceedings is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
27. Thus, it is clear that the entire proceedings in Spl. S.C. No. 175 of
2023 is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and it cannot be sustained as
against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
28. It is reported that the case has been transferred to Principal
District Judge, Kanchipuram and renumbered as Spl.S.C.No.48 of 2025.
29. Accordingly, Spl. S.C.No.175/2023 on the file of the Special
Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act at Chengalpattu which
has been renumbered as Spl.S.C.No.48 of 2025 on the file of the Principal
District Judge, Kanchipuram is hereby quashed and this Criminal Original
Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
23.04.2025
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
AT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
To
1. The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act,
Chengalpattu.
2. The Principal District Judge, Kanchipuram.
3. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
SRMC Range, Chennai - 600 122.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
AT
Crl. O.P. No. 632 of 2024 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.430, 432 of 2024 & 4731 of 2025
23.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.430, 432 of 2024 & 4731 of 2025
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Today the matter is listed under the caption 'for being
mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the
notice of this Court that, in the order dated 23.04.2025 passed in
Crl.O.P.No.632 of 2024, the appearance portion of the petitioner has been
erroneously stated as “Mr.G.Arun Kumar” instead of “Mr.C.Arunkumar.”
3. Accepting the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the name mentioned in the appearance portion of the petitioner in the
order dated 23.04.2025 shall stand corrected to read as “Mr.C.Arun Kumar”.
4. In all other aspects, the order dated 23.04.2025 passed
in Crl.O.P.No.632 of 2024 shall remain unaltered.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
Lpp
5. Registry is directed to carry out the necessary correction
in the order dated 23.04.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.632 of 2024 and issue a fresh order
copy.
11.06.2025
Lpp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 01:14:54 pm )
