Venkatesan v. State Rep By Its Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP NO.4946 OF 2026 Venkatesan, S/o.Chinnapaiyan, Pallakkollai Village, Nayakaneri Post, Ambur Taluk, Tirupattur District.
Petitioner/Accused Vs 1.State Rep by its Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ambur, Tirupattur.
(Crime No.24/2025) 2.Vinupriya, District Legal Probation Officer, District Child Protection Unit (DCPU) Tirupattur.
3.V.Kasthuri, W/o.Venkatesan, Pallakkollai Village, Nayakaneri Post, Ambur Taluk, Tirupattur District.
4.XXXXX, D/o.XXXXX, XXXXX, Ambur Taluk, Tirupattur District.
Respondents 1/7
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, praying to call for records in Crime No.24 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent and accept the compromise memo and quash the same. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondent-1:
Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondents3 & 4:
Mr.S.Vishnu
ORDER
The petitioner/accused in Crime No.24 of 2025 for offence under Sections 7 and 8 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, had filed this petition seeking to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.24 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/defacto complainant, a District Legal Probation Officer attached to District Child Protection Unit, Tirupattur lodged a complaint informing that on 07.10.2025 at about 5.00 p.m., she received a message from the victim girl, thereafter she along with one Arunprasad, Mohan Case Worker and Jayapriya, Head Constable caused an enquiry and lodged a complaint that the petitioner, who 2/7
is the father of the victim girl had come to the house in an inebriated condition and beaten her mother and forced the victim girl to accept the marriage proposal brought by him. When the victim refused, she was tortured and with bad intention the petitioner made bad touch on her. 3.The contention of the petitioner is that the victim in this case is none other than the daughter of the petitioner. The petitioner's daughter found to be always using mobile phone and speaking at odd hours. Getting suspicious over the conduct of his daughter, the petitioner made arrangements for the marriage of her daughter which was by her in anger she sent a message to the District Child Protection Unit as though the petitioner made bad touch on her.
The Child Protection Unit without conducting proper enquiry, immediately lodged a complaint as though the petitioner in a drunken state made improper touch. The plain reading of the complaint would show that it is without any details as to when and what time such incident happened. The respondent police since received complaint from the Child Protection Unit, without verifying the facts, straightaway registered F.I.R. The petitioner filed a bail petition in Crl.O.P.No.619 of 2026. This Court, by order dated 09.01.2026 granted bail recording that charge sheet in this case already filed.
counsel for petitioner submitted that so far no charge sheet filed in this case. Now the petitioner's wife/mother of the victim and the victim realised the mistake and came forward to withdraw the complaint. Affidavit and a Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect filed.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the complaint of District Child Protection Unit, a case was registered. The victim is none other than the daughter of the petitioner. She complained that the petitioner had come in a drunken state and forced the victim, a minor for a marriage arranged by him, which was resisted and at that time the petitioner beaten his wife/third respondent and also made improper touch on the victim girl. Now case registered, investigation completed and charge sheet filed through e-filing No.LTN20230002319C20250038 on 25.11.2025 and the same is yet to be taken on file.
5.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioner is the father of the victim. The complaint against the petitioner is that the petitioner in a drunken state forced the victim girl to agree for the marriage propsal. The petitioner as father had arranged a 4/7
marriage for the victim finding that victim is speaking to someone at odd hours likely to elope. It is natural behaviour of a father which was now projected as though the petitioner made improper touch and that too while beating her on one occasion. In such circumstances, giving credence to the allegations made by the victim deviating the attending circumstances might not be proper. Now the victim/fourth respondent and her mother/third respondent, the wife of the petitioner come forward to withdraw the complaint. Earlier complaint lodged not realising the seriousness and its consequences. Now the petitioner, his wife and the victim all are residing in the same house under one roof. Thereafter, there is no such incident happened. The victim is continuing her studies living safely and happily with her parents.
6.In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the First Information Report in Crime No.24 of 2025, on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed as against the petitioner. Consequently, the final report filed through e-filing No.LTN20230002319C20250038 dated 25.11.2025 is also quashed. The petitioner is discharged of all charges. 5/7
7.The affidavit and the Joint Memo of Compromise filed by the petitioner and the third respondent/mother of the victim for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.
08-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking order rsi To 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ambur, Tirupattur.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
6/7
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi CRL OP NO.4946 OF 2026 08.04.2026 7/7