Allowed¶34

Sarathkumar v. State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Feb 2025CRL OP/3591/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of proceedings; Spl.S.C.No.169 of 2023; Special Court POCSO Chennai; Section 528 BNSS 2025; second accused added in final report; Section 164 Cr.P.C statement silent on petitioner; no material against A2; victim deceased; FIR Crime No.1 of 2020; IPC 324(D)/354(A)/506(ii); PCMA 2006 ss.9-11; POCSO 2012 ss.6 & 8; trial against A1 within six months; Sarathkumar v. State (W-15 All Women Police Station, Royapuram) and Rajalakshmi (deceased).

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.169 of 2023 quashed as against the petitioner alone; connected miscellaneous petition closed; trial to continue against the first accused. ¶34

Sarathkumar Vs State Rep by the Inspector of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.169 of 2023 pending on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai are liable to be quashed as against the petitioner (second accused).

¶10

Court's answer

The victim made no allegation or expressed any intention implicating the petitioner in the complaint; her Section 164 Cr.P.C statement contains no whisper of his involvement, and no one spoke of any overt act by the petitioner warranting his impleadment as second accused.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The first respondent failed to substantiate the charges against the petitioner and produced no material in the final report to attract any of the offences alleged against him; no offence is made out by the petitioner.

¶32

Key takeaways

The entire proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.169 of 2023 cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed as against the petitioner alone.ratio¶33
The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial against the first accused in accordance with law and complete it within six months from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.), Crl.O.P.No.3591 of 2025, decided 12.02.2025: Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2025 to quash proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.169 of 2023 (Special Court for Exclusive Trial of POCSO cases, Chennai), arising from FIR Crime No.1 of 2020 under Sections 324(D), 354(A), 506(ii) IPC, Sections 9, 10 & 11 PCMA 2006 and Sections 6 & 8 POCSO Act 2012. Petitioner was added as second accused only at the final-report stage, alleging abuse of the victim on 15.08.2019. The victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C statement contained no allegation against the petitioner, no overt act was attributed to him, and no material in the final report attracted any offence against him; the victim had died. Held: proceedings quashed as against the petitioner alone; trial against the first accused to be completed within six months.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.3591 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.3591 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.2352 of 2025

¶7

Sarathkumar ..... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.State Rep By The Inspector of Police W-15, All Women Police Station, Royapuram, Chennai-600 013 Cr.No.01/2020 2.Rajalakshmi(Deceased) ..... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2025, to call for the records in Spl.S.C.No.169 of 2023 pending on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai and quash the same

¶11

For Petitioner : Ms.Shaikh Mehrunisa For R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

Crl.O.P.No.3591 of 2025

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.169 of 2023 pending on the file of the Special

¶17

Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai.

¶18

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent. Perused the materials available on record.

¶19

3. Based on the complaint lodged by the victim, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.1 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 324(D), 354(A), 506(ii) of IPC and Sections 9, 10 & 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Sections 6 & 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. It is alleged that the victim was aged about 14 years on the date of alleged occurrence in the month of January 2017. While she was going to school, the first accused expressed his love to the victim and he also compelled her to love him back. Though the victim had no love for him, he threatened her, that if she does not love him, he will pour acid on her face. However, later she fell in love with him and got married, when she was aged about 17 years on 07.04.2019 in

¶20

2/6

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.3591 of 2025

¶23

the Angalamman Temple. On compulsion, on 09.04.2019, he had sexual intercourse with her and also compelled her to do as seen in the blue film.

¶24

4. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent registered an

¶25

FIR in Crime No.1 of 2019. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in Spl.S.C.No.169 of 2023. While filing the final report, the first respondent added the petitioner as second accused, alleging that, on 15.08.2019, when the victim informed about the illegalities committed by the first accused to the petitioner, he also sexually abused her.

¶26

5. A perusal of the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C

¶27

from the victim, reveals that there is no whisper about the involvement of the

¶28

petitioner as alleged in the charge sheet. The victim did not make any allegation or express any intention implicating the petitioner in the complaint. That apart, no one has spoken about any overt act committed by the petitioner so as to warrant his implement as the second accused. The first respondent has failed to substantiate the charges against the petitioner and failed to produce any material in the final report to attract any of the offences alleged against him. That apart, the victim died and no one is there to pursue the case of the

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.3591 of 2025

¶32

prosecution. There are specific allegations as against the first accused and there are materials to attract the offences Sections 324(D), 354(A), 506(ii) of IPC and Sections 9, 10 & 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Sections 6 & 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. However, no offence is made out by the petitioner and there is no material available to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner.

¶33

In view of the above, the entire proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.169 of 2023 pending on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed as against the petitioner alone. However, the Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial as against the first accused in accordance with law and complete the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

7. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

12.02.2025

¶36

Lpp Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

Crl.O.P.No.3591 of 2025