Madras High Court
S.Venugopal vs State Rep.By on 4 February, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.2789 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.2789 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.1802 & 1803 of 2025
S.Venugopal .... Petitioner
Vs
1. State Rep.By,
The Inspector of Police,
AWPS, Chitlapakkam,
Chennai.
Crime No.434 of 2022
2. Pavithra .... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2025, to call for the records
pertaining to the final report / Charge Sheet filed by the 1st respondent
pending on the file of the Sessions Judge Exclusive Trial Cases under the
POCSO Act, at Chengalpattu District in Spl.S.C.No.117 of 2024 and
quash the same
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ravikumar
For R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 03:21:47 pm )
1/7
Crl.O.P.No.2789 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.117 of 2024 on the file of the Sessions Judge
Exclusive Trial Cases under POCSO Act, Chengalpattu.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner abused the
victim girl from 01.05.2021 to 28.09.2022. Hence, the complaint was
filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself and that the
charges are not substantiated by the evidence.
4. On instruction, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
appearing for the first respondent submitted that all the witnesses have
already been examined and the matter is now posted for arguments.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 03:21:47 pm )
6. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the second
respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.434 of
2022 for the offences under Sections 5(m), 5(1) r/w 6(1) of POCSO Act ,
2012 Section 5 of POCSO Act. After completion of investigation, the
first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance
in Spl.S.C.No.117 of 2024 by the trial Court and it is pending. To quash
the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner filed the present petition.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment
reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs.
State of Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while
dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held
that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of
the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their
statements and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as
against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while
deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while
deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has
been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 161
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 03:21:47 pm )
of Cr.P.C.
8. Fruther, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment
reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated
17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the
disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after
appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this
Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment
dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of
M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the
petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not
embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All
that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the
complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain
offences complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 03:21:47 pm )
preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or
not and whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if
accepted in entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether
the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to
law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial.
10. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage that
the initiation of the criminal proceeding itself is malicious. Whether the
criminal proceedings are malicious or not, is not required to be
considered at this state. The same is required to be considered at the
conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner to
quash the charge sheet cannot be entertained for quashing the entire
proceedings.
11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined
to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.117 of 2024 on the file of the
Sessions Judge Exclusive Trial Cases under the POCSO Act,
Chengalpattu. The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a
period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 03:21:47 pm )
12. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
04.02.2025
Lpp
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
AWPS, Chitlapakkam,
Chennai.
2 .The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 03:21:47 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Lpp
04.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 03:21:47 pm )
