Dismissed

Steepan Devaraj v. State Rep by

Madras HC26 Sept 2024CRL OP/22916/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings against a school correspondent accused of offenses under the POCSO Act and TN Protection of Women Harassment Act. The Court found prima facie materials sufficient for trial and directed that any prayer for dispensing personal appearance be decided on merits by the Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to consider application for dispensing personal appearance on merits.

Steepan Devaraj Vs State Rep by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL O.P. No.22916 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 26.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.DHANABAL

¶6

CRL OP.No.22916 of 2022 and

¶7

Crl. M.P. Nos.14708 and 14709 of 2022

¶8

Steepan Devaraj S/o. Devaraj … Petitioner / 2^nd

¶9

accused

¶10

Vs.

¶11

State represented by: The Inspector of Police, Karumandurai Police Station, Salem.

¶12

[Cr. NO.142 of 2021] …. 1^st Respondent / Complainant

¶13

…. 2^nd Respondent / Defacto complainant

¶14

Ravi S/o. Dhuraikannu

¶15

PRAYER :- The Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of

¶16

Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the entire records related to the

¶17

impugned final report in Spl. S.C. No.175 of 2022 on the file of the

¶18

learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.

¶19

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

¶20

1/7

¶21

CRL O.P. No.22916 of 2022

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr. J. Hariharan for M/s. KV Law Firm.

¶23

For Respondents : Mrs. G.V. Kasthuri, Additional Public Prosecutor [for R1]

¶24

No appearance [for R2]

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

¶27

proceedings in Spl. S.C. No.175 of 2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.

¶28

The case of the prosecution is that the 2^nd respondent and his

¶29

wife are teachers by profession and their younger daughter was studying XII standard in the school of the 2^nd respondent. At that time, the victim was sexually harassed by one of the staff of the school and the same was informed to the petitioner and he has not reported before the concerned officials for taking legal action. Therefore, based on the complaint given by the 2^nd petitioner, FIR has been registered in Cr. No.142 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 9(f), 10, 17, 21(2) of POCSO Act and Sections 305 and 511 of IPC. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent conducted

¶30

2/7

¶31

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

¶32

CRL O.P. No.22916 of 2022

¶33

investigation and filed final report for the offences under Sections 9(f), 10 and 21(2) of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. Based on the final report, the case has been numbered as Special Sessions Case before the POCSO Court, Salem. Now the above said case is pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend

¶35

that this petitioner is the Correspondence of the School and he has not received any information about the alleged occurrence and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and based on the complaint given by the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent police have registered the FIR. The 1^st respondent have not conducted proper investigation and without applying the mind, they filed the charge sheet and the Trial Court has also taken cognizance and hence the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶36

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would contend that the offences are grave in nature, that the main accused in

¶37

3/7

¶38

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

¶39

CRL O.P. No.22916 of 2022

¶40

this case has committed sexual assault against the victim girl and thereby, a complaint was lodged. This petitioner, being School Correspondent, has not taken any steps to inform about the occurrence to the concerned officials, thereby, the 2^nd respondent has given compliant and based on the complaint, FIR has been registered. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent has conducted elaborate investigation and as per the investigation, prima facie materials available to proceed the case further as against the petitioner and hence they have filed the final report. Based on the final report, the trial Court has also taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 10, 21(2) of POCSO Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Women Harassment Act. The Trial Court after considering that there are prima facie materials available to proceed the case further as against the petitioner, has taken cognizance in Special S.C. No.175 of 2022. Therefore, the petitioner has to face the trial and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶42

Based on the complaint given by the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st

¶43

4/7

¶44

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

¶45

CRL O.P. No.22916 of 2022

¶46

respondent had registered the FIR in Cr. No.142 of 2021 under Sections 9(f), 10, 21(2) of POCSO Act and Sections 305 and 511 of IPC and thereafter, the 1^st respondent conducted an elaborate investigation and at the time of investigation, the 1^st respondent police have examined witnesses and recorded their statements and collected the materials and filed final report. This Court also perused the final report and all other relevant records.

¶47

On perusal of the records, there are prima facie materials available as against the petitioner to proceed the case further as against him and the allegations are also grave in nature. The Trial Court also after considering that there are prima facie materials available as against this petitioner, has taken cognizance of the case in Spl. S.C. No.175 of 2022 under Sections 10, 21(2) of POCSO Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Women Harassment Act. The veracity of the statement of witnesses and the genuinety of the documents collected through investigation cannot be tested at this stage. This petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as sought for and this petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing

¶48

5/7

¶49

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

¶50

CRL O.P. No.22916 of 2022

¶51

for the petitioner requested this Court to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court. It is for the trial Court to decide the petition to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner and if any application is filed by the petitioner for dispensing his personal appearance, the trial Court is directed to consider the same on merits in accordance with law.

¶52

With the above observations, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶53

26.09.2024

¶54

index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mjs

P.DHANABAL, J

mjs

The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.

¶59

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶60

The Inspector of Police, Karumandurai Police Station, Salem.

¶61

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

¶62

6/7

¶63

CRL O.P. No.22916 of 2022

¶64

CRL.O.P. No.22916 of 2022

¶65

26.09.2024

¶66

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

¶67

7/7

Steepan Devaraj v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Steepan Devaraj 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

Senthil Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Dhanasekaran Vs Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

Venkatesh Vs The State Represented by

Sumathi Vs State by

E.Dhanasekaran Vs the Inspector of Police

K Reena Vs State Rep by