Madras High CourtCRL RC/1135/2025dismissed

Mahendiran v. State Rep. By

2025-07-21Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P.No.14177 of 2025 Mahendiran ....

Petitioner Vs

1. State : Rep. by The Station House Officer, All Women Police Station, Uthukottai, Tiruvallur District.

2. Selvakumari ....

Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to set aside the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvallur in Crl.M.P.No.3887 of 2024 in Spl.S.C.No.18 of 2023 and discharge the petitioner in Spl.S.C.No.18 of 2023.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumar For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated 21.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3887 of 2024 in Spl.S.C.No.18 of 2023 by the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvallur, thereby dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in this case. The case of the prosecution is that, on 15.08.2020 at about 11.00 a.m., when the victim was alone in her house, the petitioner trespassed into the house and committed penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim, as a result of which she became pregnant.

3. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered in Crime No.1 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(3), 450, 506(2) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5(1), 6, 8, 9(1) and 10 of POCSO Act.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. Pending charges, the petitioner filed an application seeking discharge. The said petition was dismissed on the ground that the Doctor evidence did not corroborate the evidence of the victim. The ground raised by the petitioner are matters for trial. That apart, on perusal of the statement recorded from the victim, the ingredients of the offences alleged clearly attracted against the petitioner for framing charges under Sections 376(3), 450, 506(2) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5(1), 6, 8, 9(1) and 10 of POCSO Act. That apart, the charges have already been framed as against the petitioner. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the petition seeking discharge.

6. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 21.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3887 of 2024 in Spl.S.C.No.18 of 2023 by the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvallur. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

21.07.2025 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Lpp

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Lpp To

1. The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvallur.

2. The Station House Officer, All Women Police Station, Uthukottai, Tiruvallur District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

21.07.2025