Disposed

Ajith Prasad E. v. Suharabi

Kerala HC3 Jun 2024Crl.MC/2525/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal Misc. Case under Section 482 CrPC alleging sexual assault and beating of a minor, the Court held the Juvenile Justice Act offence is made out prima facie and directed framing of charges on the Special Court to consider POCSO charges.

What did the court decide?

Disposed holding Juvenile Justice Act offence made out and directing Special Court to consider POCSO charges for framing charges.

Ajith Prasad E. Vs Suharabi — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2525 OF 2018

¶6

CRIME NO.818/2015 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶7

SC NO.143 OF 2017 OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

AJITH PRASAD E.
AGED 51 YEARS

¶10

S/O.YESUMITHRAN.E, AGED 51 YEARS, TEACHER, RESIDING AT
‘SREE NILAYAM’, PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 675 322.

¶11

BY ADV SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶13

1 SUHARABI

¶14

W/O. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 32 YEARS, NALAKATH HOUSE, BADAL PALLI, THRIKARIPUR, KASARAGODE DISTRICT.

¶15

2 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

R1 BY ADV SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI

¶17

R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.P.PRASANTH

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

CRL.M.C.NO.2525 OF 2018 2

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2024

¶22

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash Annexure A1 charge sheet and final report and all further proceedings in S.C.No.143/2017 on the files of the 1^st Additional Sessions Court, Kasaragod.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the relevant documents.

¶24

The prosecution allegation in this case is that, the accused, who is none other than the teacher of St.Paul’s A.U.P. School, Thrikkaripur, subjected the minor victim, studying in the 1^st Std., to sexual assault and when he disobeyed his command, he was beaten by the accused. It is on this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of the offences punishable under Section 9(f),(m) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, ‘the POCSO Act’,

¶25

CRL.M.C.NO.2525 OF 2018 3

¶26

hereinafter) as well as under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

¶27

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, going by the materials available, sexual assault constituting offence under Section 9(f) and (m) of the POCSO Act, not made out.

¶28

Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant supported the Final Report and submitted that, the entire offences alleged by the prosecution are made out and therefore, the case shall go for trial, without being quashed.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor also shared the argument of the learned counsel for the de facto complainant, while opposing quashment.

¶30

On perusal of the statement of the victim, the same would go to show that offence under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act, is specifically made out, prima facie. But as regards to offence under Section 9(f) and (m) of the POCSO Act, the same requires consideration by the Special Court, at the time of framing charge.

¶31

CRL.M.C.NO.2525 OF 2018 4

¶32

In view of the above, this Crl.M.C. stands disposed of, holding that offence under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act is made out, prima facie, with a direction to the Special Court to consider whether the ingredients to attract offence under Section 9(f) and (m) of the POCSO Act, has been made out to frame charge and to frame charge for the offences made out from the prosecution records to proceed with trial.

¶33

Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶34

¶35

CRL.M.C.NO.2525 OF 2018 5

¶36

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2525/2018

¶37

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET FILED
IN CRIME NO.818/2015 FILED BY SHO,
CHANDERA.
ANNEXURE A2TRUE PHOTO COPY OF ORDER IN BAIL
APPLICATION NO.8231/2016 DATED 02/12/2016
OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
ANNEXURE A3SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD TO THE
PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A4CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT MADE
BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE.

¶38

RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES : NIL

Ajith Prasad E. v. Suharabi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajith Prasad E. v. Suharabi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anitha, Vs State of Kerala

Xxxx Vs Xxxx

Shijad.T. J Vs State of Kerala

1. Arun Narayanan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Pocker Vs the Station House Officer

Bichu K Dileep Vs the State of Kerala