Dismissed

Manikandan v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Jun 2023CRL OP/13612/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a petition filed to set aside an order of the Ariyalur Fast Track Mahila Court. The Court held that the victim child had already been extensively cross-examined and repeatedly calling her to testify is barred under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act.

What did the court decide?

The petition to set aside the order dated 15.06.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No.1545 of 2022 is dismissed.

Manikandan Vs Inspector of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P..No.13612 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.06.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.13612 of 2023

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.M.P.No.8314 of 2023

¶9

Manikandan

¶10

Lakshmi

¶11

Tamilselvan ... Petitioners

¶12

Vs.

¶13

Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Jayankondam

¶14

Crime No.27 of 2021 ... Respondent

¶15

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 15.06.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No.1545 of 2022 in Spl.S.C.No.54 of 2021 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Parthikannan For Respondent : Mr. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/5

¶18

Crl.O.P..No.13612 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 15.06.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No.1545 of 2022 in Spl.S.C.No.54 of 2021 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, victim girl turned hostile, hence the prosecution conducted the cross-examination. He further submitted that, petitioner also cross-examined the PW1, however, no specific suggestions were made with reference to the statement given by the victim girl. Therefore, petitioner filed recall petition in Crl.M.P.No.1545 of 2022, however, the recall petition was dismissed. Therefore, present petition is filed.

¶22

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that, PW1 was already cross-examined by the petitioner. There is a bar under Section

¶23

33(5) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act to repeatedly call the victim girl to testify in the Court.

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5

¶25

Crl.O.P..No.13612 of 2023

¶26

4. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records. As

¶27

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, evidence of PW1 shows

¶28

that, she was treated as hostile witness and she was extensively crossexamined by the prosecution and the defence. Cross Examination is sufficiently done. There is a bar under Section 33(5) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act that the victim girl shall not be called repeatedly to testify in the Court.

¶29

Section 33(5) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 :

¶30

(5) The Special Court shall ensure that the child is not called repeatedly to testify in the court.

¶31

5. Therefore, this Court finds no merits in the petition seeking to set

¶32

aside the order the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur in Crl,M.P.No.1545 of 2023. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Fast

¶33

Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur in Crl,M.P.No.1545 of 2023 is confirmed.

¶34

Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed.

¶35

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5

¶37

Crl.O.P..No.13612 of 2023

¶38

20.06.2023

¶39

Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Sma

¶40

To:

¶41

1. Fast Track Mahila Judge, Ariyalur

¶42

2.Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Jayankondam

¶43

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/5

¶45

Crl.O.P..No.13612 of 2023

¶46

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J. sma

¶47

Crl.O.P. No.13612 of 2023

¶48

20.06.2023

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/5

Manikandan v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan v. 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

Jayaprakash Vs State Rep by

R.Raja Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

R.Manokaran Vs State Rep by

M/s.Shriram Housing Finance Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Police

Shanmugam Vs the Commissioner of Police

U. Parthan Vs the State Rep.by Its