Allowed¶60

Sugesh @ Subash v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC28 Jan 2026CRL OP/26264/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J.) allows Crl.O.P.No.26264 of 2022 and quashes charge sheet in Spl.SC.No.60 of 2021 (Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri) against A2 and A3 charged under Ss.363, 366, 366A IPC, Ss.5(I), 16, 17, 6(1) POCSO Act and Ss.9, 10 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act for abetting kidnap/sexual assault of minor victim. Basis: victim's S.164 Cr.P.C. statement that A1 took her to Tiruppur unbeknownst to petitioners, without compulsion; ingredients of S.366-A IPC per Court's order in Crl.R.C.No.848 of 2021; Deelip Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 203 followed; continuance would be abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the charge sheet in Spl.SC.No.60 of 2021, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, in respect of the petitioners (A2 and A3).

Sugesh @ Subash Vs Inspector of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the charge sheet in Spl.SC.No.60 of 2021, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, in respect of the petitioners (A2 and A3).

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet in Spl.SC.No.60 of 2021, pending on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, should be quashed as against the petitioners (A2 and A3). +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The criminal original petition stands allowed and the impugned charge sheet in Spl.SC.No.60 of 2021 is quashed in respect of the petitioners, who are A2 and A3.

¶60

Ratio / Principle

In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim girl explicitly affirmed that the 1st accused took her to Tiruppur unbeknownst to the petitioners and that she was not subjected to compulsion by the petitioners.

¶53

Key takeaways

In light of the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, the allegations of kidnapping and compulsion against the petitioners stand negated, and the charge framed against the petitioners under Section 16 of the POCSO Act pales into insignificance.ratio¶53
Following the ratio laid down in Deelip Singh vs. State of Bihar (AIR 2005 SC 203) and considering the materials on record, particularly the categorical statement of the victim girl, no material evidence is made out against the petitioners, and keeping the impugned criminal proceedings pending against them would be an abuse of process of law.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. — Petition allowed; charge sheet quashed qua A2 and A3. The petitioners (A2 and A3) in Spl.SC.No.60 of 2021 (Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri), arising out of FIR in Crime No.11 of 2021 (All Women Police Station, Hosur) and charged under Sections 363, 366 and 366A IPC, Sections 5(I), 16, 17 and 6(1) of the POCSO Act and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act for allegedly instigating/inducing the minor victim to accompany the 1st accused, who under the pretext of marriage took her, married her and committed penetrative sexual assault on her, sought quashing of the charge sheet. The Court adverted to the ingredients of Section 366-A IPC as set out in its earlier order dated 28.01.2022 in Crl.R.C.No.848 of 2021, and to Sections 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act (abetment and punishment therefor). Holding that the victim girl's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. — that the 1st accused took her to Tiruppur unbeknownst to the petitioners and that she was not subjected to compulsion by them — negated the allegations of kidnapping and compulsion, so that the charge under Section 16 POCSO paled into insignificance, and following the ratio in Deelip Singh vs. State of Bihar (AIR 2005 SC 203) that lack of genuine intent to compel invalidates charges of kidnapping, the Court found no material evidence against the petitioners; keeping the proceedings pending would be an abuse of process of law. The charge sheet was quashed in respect of the petitioners (A2 and A3).

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.26264 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 28.01.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.26264 of 2022

¶7

Sugesh @ Subash

¶8

Vishnu ...Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1 . The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Hosur, Krishnagiri.

¶11

2 . J.Muthu ...Respondents

¶12

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in Spl.SC.No.60 of 2021, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.M.P.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.S.Santhosh, GA(Crl. Side), for R1 No Appearance, for R2

¶14

1/8

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.26264 of 2022

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet in Spl.SC.No.60 of 2021, pending on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri.

¶19

2. The brief facts of the case are detailed below:

¶20

2.1 Based on the complaint given by the 2 nd respondent/de facto complainant, who is the father of the victim girl, an FIR in Crime No.11 of 2021 came to be registered on the file of the 1 st respondent for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 366A of IPC as against the petitioners/A2 and A3, and one Naveenkumar/A1. On completion of investigation, the final report came to be filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri in Spl.SC.No.60 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 366A of IPC and Sections 5(I), 16, 17 and 6(1) of the POCSO Act and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act as against the petitioners herein and also against the said Naveenkumar, and one Ajthkumar.

¶21

2.2 The allegations made in the charge sheet are that, the 1 st accused, developed a love affair with the victim girl, who was a minor at the relevant point of time and under the pretext of marrying her, on 19.05.2021, around 06.30 pm, the 1 st accused took the victim girl, married her and 2/8

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.26264 of 2022 committed penetrative sexual assault on her, and that the petitioners herein abetted the 1 st accused for committing the abovesaid offences. Challenging the same, the petitioners have come up with this petition.

¶24

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1 st

¶25

petitioner is a friend of the 1 st accused and the 2 nd petitioner is a friend of the 1st petitioner and even as per the prosecution, the only allegation made against the petitioners herein is that they instigated and induced the victim girl to accompany the 1 st accused, with the full knowledge that she would be subjected to illicit sexual intercourse. Learned counsel further submitted that even taking into consideration the statement made by the 2 nd respondent/de facto complainant as also that of the victim girl, the ingredients of the alleged offences cannot be made out against the petitioners. He also submitted that even as per the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., it is evident that the 1 st accused took the victim girl to Tiruppur, unbeknownst to the petitioners herein. Hence, it is his contention that the charges framed against the petitioners herein cannot be sustained and prayed for quashing the impugned charge sheet as against the petitioners.

¶26

3/8

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.26264 of 2022 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶29

appearing for the 1 st respondent submitted that it is the petitioners herein, who helped the 1 st accused to kidnap the victim girl and induced the victim girl to accompany the 1 st accused and hence, the impugned proceedings does not deserve to be quashed.

¶30

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

¶31

6. Given the background facts obtaining in this case, it is apposite

¶32

to refer to the order dated 28.01.2022 passed in Crl.R.C.No.848 of 2021, wherein, this Court has allowed the said case on the ground that there is no material to suggest that the petitioner therein induced the victim girl to go from any place or do any act with the intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be forced or subjected to illicit intercourse with another person. At paragraph 9 of the said order, this Court has held that in order to frame charges for the offence under Section 366-A IPC, the prosecution should establish the following grounds:

¶33

“ 1. the accused must have induced a girl;

¶34

2. the said girl must be below 18 years of age;

¶35

3. the said girl was induced to go from a place, or to do any act, with intent or knowledge that such girl would be forced, or seduced to illicit intercourse with a person.”

¶36

4/8

¶37

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

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.26264 of 2022

¶39

7. Further, this Court deems it fit to allude to Sections 16 and 17 of

¶40

POCSO Act, which read as follows:

¶41

“ Section 16 - Abetment of an offence:

¶42

A person abets an offence, who--

¶43

First .--Instigates any person to do that offence; or Secondly .--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that offence, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that offence; or Thirdly .--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that offence.

¶44

Explanation I. --A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact, which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that offence.

¶45

Explanation II .--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

¶46

Explanation III .--Whoever employ, harbours, receives or transports a child, by means of threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of a position, vulnerability or the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of any offence under this Act, is said to aid the doing of that act.

¶47

Section 17 - Punishment for abetment

¶48

Whoever abets any offence under this Act, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment,

¶49

5/8

¶50

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

¶51

Crl.O.P.No.26264 of 2022 shall be punished with punishment provided for that offence.

¶52

Explanation. -- An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy or with the aid, which constitutes the abetment.”

¶53

8. In the present case, the victim girl, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., explicitly affirmed that the 1 st accused took her to Tiruppur, unbeknownst to the petitioners herein and that she was not subjected to compulsion by the petitioners herein. This candid assertion of the victim negates the allegations of kidnapping and compulsion levelled against the petitioners. In other words, in the light of the statement given by the victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the charge framed against the petitioners under Section 16 extracted supra, pales into insignificance.

¶54

9. Superadded, pertinent it is to point out that in Deelip Singh vs.

¶55

State of Bihar [AIR 2005 SC 203 ] , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that lack of genuine intent to compel would invalidate the charges of kidnapping. Thus, following the ratio laid down in Deelip Singh (supra) and taking into consideration the materials available on record, particularly the categorical statement of the victim girl herself, this Court is of the view that no material evidence is made out against the petitioners herein and therefore, keeping 6/8

¶56

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

¶57

Crl.O.P.No.26264 of 2022

¶58

the impugned criminal proceedings pending against them would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.

¶59

10. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands allowed and

¶60

the impugned charge sheet in Spl.SC.No.60 of 2021, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, is quashed in respect of the petitioners herein, who are A2 & A3.

¶61

28.01.2026

¶62

skt

¶63

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶64

¶65