M.Boopathy v. The State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL.O.P.No.1687 of 2022 M.Boopathy
...Petitioner/Accused
Versus
1. The State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Mohanur Police Station, Namakkal.
(Crime No.696 of 2021) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.S.Shanthi ..2nd Respondent/Defacto complainant 3.M.Renganayagi ...3rd Respondent/Victim Girls Mother PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.696 of 2021, on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner :
Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For R1 :
Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.696 of 2021, dated 17.11.2021, on the file of the 1st respondent Police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 17.11.2021, at about 05.00 p.m., the 2nd respondent, Social Welfare Development Officer, Panchayat Union, Moganur lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent Police. The complaint is that on 01.05.2021, the 2nd respondent received a phone call through Child Helpline Number 1098. Thereafter, the Village Administrative Officer, Peramandapalayam and one Child Helpline Member had gone to the
petitioner's house and enquired him. The petitioner informed that he got married the victim girl at Murugan Temple, Moganur. Since their parents refused the marriage, they were living separately for some days. On enquiry with the victim girl, she stated that the petitioner married her and had sexual intercourse with for several times. Finding the victim girl was a minor at the time of occurrence, she was handed over to the Child Welfare Officer and thereafter, she was sent back to her parents. On the complaint of the 2nd respondent, a case in Crime No.696 of 2021, for offence under Sections 6, 5(l) and 9 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 was registered against the petitioner, against which the present quash petition.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the 2nd respondent, the occurrence had taken place on 25.02.2021 and she received the information about the marriage of the victim girl with the petitioner on 01.05.2021. After six months only (17.11.2021), the complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent Police, for which, no reason was given by the 2nd respondent Police. He further submitted that the petitioner and the victim girl are relatives. There was family arrangement for the victim girl's marriage after she attains majority. The family members of the victim girl are uneducated and the age recorded in the school records is not correct.
He further submitted that the victim girl has not stated about any sexual assault of the petitioner, when she was enquired by the Child Welfare Officer as well as when she was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Namakkal, for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, on 24.11.2021. The victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., stated that the Village Administrative Officer got her signature in the blank paper and she did not make any complaint about the marriage or sexual assault made by the petitioner. Admittedly, in this case, the victim girl and the petitioner are relatives and known to each other. Further, it was decided that after the victim girl attains majority, she would be given in marriage.
There was inimical group in the village, who had given a false complaint to the Child Welfare Committee. The Child Welfare Committee without properly verifying the true facts, had lodged a criminal complaint before the 1st respondent Police, even the 1st respondent Police also not conducted the preliminary enquiry on the complaint and mechanically registered the FIR against the petitioner. 4.
confirming the false case registered against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for quashing of FIR against the petitioner. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent Police submitted that on the complaint of 2nd respondent, FIR has been registered against the petitioner. The 2nd respondent admitted that the complaint lodged before the 1st respondent Police with delay of six months. The victim girl and her parents appeared before the 1st respondent Police and confirmed about the false case registered against the petitioner and they have filed affidavits before this Court along with identify cards. The victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has not stated anything about the marriage and any sexual assault committed by the petitioner. She stated that the petitioner is a close relative residing in the same village. She wants to continue her studies for the present, after attains majority, the marriage can be decided. 6.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
7.Today the victim girl, her mother/3rd respondent and the petitioner appeared appeared before this Court. The victim girl and her mother confirmed that the petitioner is a close relative living in the same village and there is no arrangement for victim girl's marriage for the present. The victim girl stated that she wants to continue her studies and she is not interest to pursue the complaint against the petitioner. 8.This Court in the case of "Sabari Vs. Inspector of Police reported in 2019(2) MLJ Crl.110", had observed that during the adolescent age, boys and girls got involved in a relationship, such relationship would be the result of mutual innocence and biological attraction, which cannot be construed as an unnatural one or alien to between relationship of opposite sexes.
9.In a similar situation, in the case of "Kumar @ Tennish Vs. The Inspector of Police, Latheri Police Station, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore and another in Crl.O.P.No.16648 of 2018", this Court had quashed the proceedings on the compromise arrived between the accused and defacto complainant.
10.In the light of the above decisions and considering the fact that the continuation of the proceedings would affect the peaceful life of the victim girl and the petitioner, this Court is inclined to quash the FIR against the petitioner in
Crime No.696 of 2021, on the file of the 1st respondent Police and the same is quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vv2 To 1.The Inspector of Police, Mohanur Police Station, Namakkal.
(Crime No. 696/2021) 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+1 CC to Mr. Camyles Gandhi, Advocate sr 6956. CRL.O.P.No.1687 of 2022 MG(CO) SP(18/02/2022)