Madras High Court
Parasakthi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 January, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1104 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1104 of 2025
Parasakthi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by
The Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Thoothukudi. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the
B.N.S.S., to call for the records with regard to the final report in
Spl.S.C.No.84 of 2020, on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive
Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Thoothukudi and set aside the
same and consequently, direct the respondent to further investigate in
Crime No.42 of 2019, pending on the file of the second respondent
herein and file final report afresh, within the period stipulated by this
Court.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1104 of 2025
For Petitioner : A.Parasakthi
Party-in-Person
For R1 and R2 : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner, being the de-facto complainant, has filed this
Criminal Original Petition seeking to set aside the charge sheet in
Spl.S.C.No.84 of 2020, pending before the Special Court for Exclusive
Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Thoothukudi. The petitioner
further seeks a direction to the second respondent Police to conduct
further investigation in Crime No.42 of 2019 and file a fresh final report.
2. The petitioner/de-facto complainant submits that she is the
mother of the victim child. She was married to Anbu Mani on
04.03.2012, and after marriage, both lived in Amman Kovil Street,
Mullakadu, Thoothukudi District. The couple has two children. On
27.12.2019, during the Pongal festival celebration, a dance programme
was held in the Village just opposite the petitioner's house. The
petitioner's daughter (aged 3 ½ years) and son (aged 2 ½ years) went to
witness the programme, while the petitioner stayed at home due to a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
severe headache. At around 08:30 p.m., the petitioner's son returned
home crying and searching for his sister. He went back to the crowd, and
both children returned home at approximately 08:45 p.m. The daughter
was silent, while the son continued to cry. Later, at about 09:30 p.m., the
petitioner's husband took both children out for food, returning home at
11:45 p.m.
3. On 28.12.2019, at around 09:30 a.m., when the petitioner's
daughter went out to urinate, she discharged a red-colored substance
resembling jelly. The petitioner collected it in a cloth to show to the
doctor. Upon questioning, the daughter stated that two boys were near
her and had touched her back. The petitioner then took her daughter to
Annai Saradha Hospital, where Dr.Kumaran examined the girl and
confirmed the sexual assault. He advised the petitioner to take her
daughter to Dr.Ramya at the One Stop Crisis Center. Dr.Kumaran had
already informed Dr.Ramya about the condition of the victim child.
4. Dr.Ramya further examined the petitioner's daughter and
confirmed that she had been sexually assaulted by two unknown persons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
near the petitioner's house. Later, the Sub-Inspector of Police at
Muthaiahpuram Police Station informed the petitioner that Thangakumar
had surrendered, admitting his guilt. The petitioner was advised to file a
complaint at the All Women Police Station, Thoothukudi. Hence, on
29.12.2019, the petitioner lodged the complaint. After the investigation,
a charge sheet was filed.
5. The petitioner contends that the medical report in this case
indicates that ejaculation occurred outside the body orifice, and it was
also recorded that there was vaginal bleeding, suggesting an incident of
sexual violence. Further, the report notes that two known persons in the
crowd committed the sexual assault. However, these factors were not
properly considered during the investigation, and only one accused is
being prosecuted. The petitioner also states that certain discharges
collected from her daughter were not examined properly. Moreover, the
petitioner faced difficulties in registering the F.I.R., being made to run
from pillar to post, and it was only two days later that the F.I.R. was
eventually registered. The petitioner further submits that the
investigation was not conducted in accordance with the established rules.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The petitioner further submits that the statement of the victim
child was not recorded at her home, and the F.I.R. was not registered
within 24 hours as required. Further, the victim child's statement should
have been recorded within 30 days of receiving information, but she was
only produced on 30.01.2020. The trial in this case was supposed to be
completed within one year, but it is still pending. Furthermore, the victim
child, who was about 3 ½ years old, had her statement recorded by a
Magistrate, not by a lady Magistrate as required. These violations of
procedure could provide grounds for the accused to evade justice.
7. The petitioner further submits that after the initial incident, the
petitioner's husband, her father-in-law, and others sexually assaulted the
victim child by injecting substances into her body. In response, the
petitioner lodged a complaint against her husband, leading to the
registration of a case in Crime No.43 of 2021 under Sections 5(m), 5(n),
and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. A
charge sheet has been filed in that case, and the petitioner's husband is
now facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.78 of 2022. These facts have been brought
to the attention of the trial Court, investigating officers, and superior
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
police officers, but no action has been taken. Hence, the petitioner has
filed the above petition.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,
submitted that the petitioner has been altering her statement at each
stage, providing elaborate statements and making allegations without
sufficient evidence. The petitioner has also lodged a complaint against
her husband, for which a case has been registered, and the trial is now in
progress.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as far as
this case is concerned, apart from the petitioner's exaggerated statement,
the victim child's statement is consistent with the medical records, which
contradict the petitioner's allegations. Both the medical records and the
doctor's statement oppose the petitioner's version of events. Further, the
petitioner is one of the reasons for the delay in the trial. There is also
matrimonial discord between the petitioner and her husband, along with
disputes involving her in-laws and other relatives. The petitioner's
representation was received but found to be contrary to the facts and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
evidence, and no action has been taken. The case is now at the
penultimate stage, posted for judgment on 24.01.2025 (today). It appears
that the petitioner seeks to prolong the proceedings by making wild
allegations against her husband's family. A similar representation was
made earlier, and upon finding that the evidence, the victim child's
statements, and the medical records contradicted the petitioner's version,
her representation was not acted upon.
10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that
the petitioner appears to be attempting to merge the evidence and
materials from another case, namely, Spl.S.C.No.78 of 2022, with the
present case. It seems that she is trying to connect both cases, which is
likely the reason for filing this petition and therefore, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition.
11. Considering the above submissions and upon perusal of the
materials, including the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim child before
the learned Magistrate, it is evident that the victim child did not provide
the statement as projected by the petitioner. The petitioner, in her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
complaint and initial statements, did not mention the current allegations
she is now making. Furthermore, the petitioner has filed a separate case
against her husband for penetrative sexual assault on the victim child,
which was registered at a later time.
12. Due to matrimonial discord, the petitioner has been living with
her parents along with the children, and there have been ongoing issues
regarding visitation rights and complaints have been made against her
husband and in-laws in this regard.
13. As far as this case is concerned, on perusing the complaint for
further investigation, the statement, materials, and witnesses' depositions
before the trial Court, it is clear that the investigation was conducted
properly. Witnesses have testified accordingly, and the petitioner's
allegations, which are recent and unsupported by any materials, appear to
be unsubstantiated.
14. The case is now pending judgment, scheduled for 24.01.2025
(today). In light of these circumstances, this Court finds no merit in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
entertaining the Criminal Original Petition. Therefore, the Criminal
Original Petition is dismissed, and the trial Court is directed to pass its
judgment.
24.01.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
smn2
Note:- Issue order copy on 24.01.2025.
To
1.The Judge,
Special Court for Exclusive Trial of
Cases under the POCSO Act,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Thoothukudi.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
smn2
Order made in
Dated: 24.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
