Allowed

S.Parameshwaran v. State Rep by

Madras HC23 Jun 2021CRL OP/20352/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a quash petition under Section 482 CrPC regarding a trial under the POCSO Act. Based on affidavits confirming compromise, marriage, and the birth of a child between the petitioner and the victim, the Court held that continuing proceedings would serve no purpose and affect the family's peace and the child's welfare. The petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition Crl.O.P. No.20352 of 2020 allowed; connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition closed. Charge sheet/Final Report quashed.

S.Parameshwaran Vs State Rep by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.06.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.20352 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.8507 of 2020

¶6

S.Parameshwaran ...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police Nangavalli Police Station Salem District. (Crime No.144 of 2016)

¶9

2.K.Chitra

¶10

3.P.Bavithradevi ...Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the Final Report/Charge Sheet No.FR-120 of 2018 dated 10.04.2018, arising out of Case Crime No.144 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent and pending trial before the Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Salem District in Spl.S.C.No.219 of 2019.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.F.Wellington

¶13

For Respondents: Mr.A.Damodaran for R1 Government Advocate (Crl.Side) : Mr.R.Balu for R2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the Final Report/Charge Sheet No.FR-120 of 2018 dated 10.04.2018, arising out of the Case in Crime No.144 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent, pending trial before the Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Salem District in Spl.S.C.No.219 of 2019.

¶16

The petitioner/accused in Spl.S.C.No.219 of 2019, who is facing trial, for the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC

¶17

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

¶18

and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 6 r/w 5(1) of POCSO Act,2012, has filed this quash petition.

¶19

The gist of the case is that the second respondent/defacto complainant is the mother of the victim girl and she had given a complaint on 22.04.2016 to the effect that while her minor daughter/third respondent herein, was studying at 10^th Standard in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Nangavalli, she had eloped with the petitioner, who is residing in the same locality. Whenever the victim girl was returning from the school, the petitioner often talked to her and developed a love affair with her and the same was objected by the parents of the victim to discontinue the relationship. Taking advantage of the tender age of the victim P.Bavithradevi with the intention to exploit her sexually, the accused often coerced, seduced and enticed her by making false promise that he will marry her. On 21.04.2016, the victim girl was forcibly kidnapped by the petitioner from the lawful guardianship of her parents and she was taken to Mettur. They were staying in the petitioner's cousin house and married in Chennimalai Murugan Temple. Thereafter, the petitioner took a rented house at Chennimalai and stayed there for 1 1/2 months. During that period, the victim was sexually assaulted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the case came to be registered and on conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed, by listing 12 documents, LW1 to LW12 .

¶20

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the victim girl were in love with each other and the same was objected by the victim's parents. When they arranged for a marriage of the victim girl with an elderly person, she left the house and forced the petitioner to take her away. Despite the petitioner tried to pacify her, the victim was adamant and threatened that she would commit suicide. Hence, the petitioner had no other option and they both left their house and stayed at Chennimalai for some time. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and remanded into judicial custody from 12.06.2016 to 05.07.2016. When the petitioner came out of the jail, both the families compromised and arranged marriage of the petitioner with the third respondent and the marriage was held on 29.05.2015 at Murugan Temple Kasapagadu. After the marriage, the petitioner and the third respondent was blessed with a female child on 10.03.2020 and now, they are living happily. Further, he submitted that at this stage, continuing the proceedings would serve no purpose, which would only cause harassment and untold sufferings to the petitioner, victim and the infant.

¶21

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has submitted that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent/victim's

¶22

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

¶23

mother, the case came to be registered and after conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the petitioner was arrested. Subsequently, the family members of the petitioner and the victim girl came to an understanding to conduct marriage between them. With the blessing of the elders, marriage was held at Murugan Temple on 25.09.2019 and out of the wedlock, they got a female child and now they are living happily as husband and wife.

¶24

The second respondent has now filed an affidavit and also appeared before this Court and submitted that her husband died on 23.02.2018 and the victim girl was adamant in marrying the petitioner. Hence, with the blessing of both the families, marriage was held between the petitioner and the victim and now they got a girl child. Further, the second respondent has not objected to quash the petition, on the ground of compromise, after further developments. The victim girl appeared before this Court and confirmed her relationship with the petitioner and she also admitted that she compelled the petitioner to take her away from her home. Now, both of them are jointly living together as husband and wife and blessed with a female child.

¶25

The mother of the victim has further stated that the victim girl has no Birth Certificate while she got admitted in the School. At the time of admission, the age of the victim was recorded approximately by the School authorities, it is not the correct age, she might be elder and she was also conscious about her relationship and love affair with the petitioner.

¶26

Considering the above submissions and the materials on record and also both the victim and her mother appeared and filed affidavit confirming the compromise and marriage between the petitioner and the victim, now, they also blessed with a girl child, at this juncture, the continuation of the proceedings would serve no purpose and it only affect the peaceful life of the victim and welfare of the child. Further, the age recorded in the School certificate is only approximate.

¶27

In view of the same, this Court is inclined to allow this Petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

dna

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

The Special court for exclusive trail of cases under POSCO Act, Salem

¶35

The Inspector of Police Nangavalli Police Station Salem District. (Crime No.144 of 2016) 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Copy to 1. The Presiding Officer, The Hon'ble POSCO Committee, High Court, Madras. Crl.O.P.No.20352 of 2020 and

¶36

Crl.M.P.No.8507 of 2020

¶37

PCH(CO) RGA(20/07/2021)

¶38

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

S.Parameshwaran v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Parameshwaran v. State Rep by

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

S.Dhamodharan Vs the State by

Nagaraj Vs State Rep by

Ameena Bagam Vs State by

K.Sureshkumar Vs the State Rep.by

A.Dhanasekaran Vs R.Shenbagavalli

D.Vidhya Vs R.Saravanakumar