Allowed

Immanuel v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Nov 2019CRL OP/30002/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a Cr.P.C. filing to quash criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act for verbal abuse of a 14-year-old minor. Despite reluctance to quash such cases, the Court allowed the petition on a joint compromise memo due to the verbal nature of the abuse and pecuniary circumstances, quashing the lower court proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in S.C.No.214 of 2019 pending in the Mahila Court, Chennai, are quashed.

Immanuel Vs the Inspector of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.11.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.30002 of 2019

Immanuel

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Inspector of Police, W-18, All Women Police Station, M.K.B.Nagar, Chennai.

¶10

Elisabeth ...Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in S.C.No.214 of 2019 on the file of the Mahila Court, Chennai and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Thiyagarajan

¶13

For Respondents: Mrs.V.Saratha Devi

¶14

Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R1

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in S.C.No.214 of 2019 on the file of the Mahila Court, Chennai and quash the same.

¶17

The only offence, for which the petitioner has been implicated, is the POCSO Act. The abuse is verbal in nature and the victim girl was 14 years at the time of the occurrence and she is not stated to be 19 years of age. At this stage, the victim girl has come forward with a Joint Compromise Memo dated 11.11.2019, stating that they do not intend to proceed with the criminal case against the accused and therefore, seeks to quash the proceedings. Though this Court will not normally encourage the quashing of proceedings for the offence under POCSO Act, on the basis of joint compromise memo, in the pecuniary circumstances of the case, that the abuse was only verbal and that the victim girl herself has compromised the issue with the accused, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view and not interfere with the criminal proceedings.

¶18

1/2

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

Both the de-facto complainant and the petitioner are present before this Court today. In order to identify the respective parties, they have also submitted the photo copies of their Aadhar Cards and the same has been made part of the record.

¶21

Recording the statements made in the Joint Compromise Memo dated 11.11.2019., the proceedings in S.C.No.214 of 2019, pending on the file of the Mahila Court, Chennai, is quashed.

¶22

The Criminal Original Petition stands allowed accordingly.

¶23

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Judge,
Mahila Court,
Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
W-18, All Women Police Station,
M.K.B.Nagar, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
+1 cc to M/s.B.Thiyagarajan, Advocate Sr.No. 94259
AKM/04.12.19/2P-5C /

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.30002 of 2019

¶25

2/2

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Immanuel v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Immanuel v. the Inspector of Police

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

Mr.Ganamani, Aged 52 Years, Vs State Rep by

Suriya Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

P.Manjamuthu Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

S.Vallirajam Vs The Commissioner of Police

T.R.Madhavan Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Rajkumar Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police