Allowed

Sumir v. State Rep by

Madras HC19 Mar 2024CRL OP/9586/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to quash a POCSO sessions case. The de facto complainant filed an affidavit stating his daughter had a love affair with the petitioner, who agreed to marry her after she turns 18. Relying on the affidavit and petitioner's undertaking, the court quashed the proceedings, keeping liberty to reopen on default.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.69 of 2021 before Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Thiruvallur quashed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; affidavit made part of order; liberty to reopen on default.

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

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.9586 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.9586 of 2022

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.M.P.Nos.5627 & 5677 of 2022

Sumir

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.State represented by The Inspector of Police AWPS, Uthukottai Police Station Thiruvallur 602026

¶13

2.Nethaji ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the entire records connected with Spl.S.C.No.69 of 2021 pending on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Thiruvallur and quash the charge sheet / final report.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Suriyamuthu For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) - R1 Mr.Nethaji - Party in Person - R2

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.9586 of 2022

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has filed this Criminal Original petitions to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.69 of 2021 pending on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Thiruvallur, in which cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of IPC and Section 4(2) of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶20

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the petitioner and the second respondent appeared in person along with their respective counsels.

¶21

The de facto complainant filed an affidavit stating that there was a love affair between his daughter and the petitioner. Now, she is pursuing a BA degree, and after its completion, the petitioner has agreed to marry her. Therefore, he is not inclined to proceed with the matter. The petitioner is also studying at the Sham Industrial Training Centre in Thiruvallur. Considering the welfare of the daughter, it has been agreed that after she completes 18 years of age, she will marry the petitioner.

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.9586 of 2022

¶24

The petitioner appeared in person before this Court and submitted

¶25

that he agreed to marry the de facto complainant's daughter.

¶26

Considering the submissions of the petitioner and the affidavit filed

¶27

by the de facto complainant, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.69 of 2021 pending on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Thiruvallur.

¶28

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the affidavit shall form part and parcel of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶29

If any default on the side of the petitioner, the case will re-open at

¶30

the instance of the defacto complainant. Liberty is granted to the defacto complainant to re-open the case.

¶31

19.03.2024

¶32

Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No rri

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.9586 of 2022

¶35

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶36

rri

¶37

To,

¶38

1.The Inspector of Police AWPS, Uthukottai Police Station Thiruvallur 602026.

¶39

2.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Thiruvallur .

¶40

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.9586 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.5627 & 5677 of 2022

¶42

19.03.2024

¶43

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

Sumir v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumir 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

B.Ilangovan Vs Inspector of Police

Sivaranjani Vs Manikandan @ Sivakumar

Abdul Wahab Vs M/S.Vasavi Marketing

Uday Joshi Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by

V.Ramasubramaniyan Vs Tamil Nadu State Rep by

S.Ravindran Vs the Ispector of Police