Minor Hemraj v. The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR and Crl.M.P.No.15311 of 2025 1.Minor Hemraj
2. Minor Venkatakrishnan ... Petitioners Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police W-14, Tiruvottiyur All Women Police Station Tiruvottiyur, Chennai 2.Abirami ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records pending in J.C.No.39 of 2025 on the file of the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Tiruvallur, arising out of Crime No.6 of 2024 registered by the 1st respondent police and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen for Mr.H.Thameen Ansari For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan for R1 Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.B.Karthik for R2
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the case pending in J.C.No.39 of 2025 on the file of the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Tiruvallur, arising out of Crime No.6 of 2024 registered by the 1st 1/4
respondent police.
2. The petitioners, of-course are minors and students. The allegations against the petitioners are that they have sexually harassed the defacto complainant's daughter by abusive language and morphing photographs. Statement under Section 164 is also recorded from the victim. The complainant was given by the victim's mother and victim's friends have also given statement supporting the case of the victim. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot conduct roving enquiry so as to find out the veracity of the case. Though, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint is nothing but motivated and is solely given due to some dispute in the Trust, where, the so-called victim's father was one of the trustee and he was removed from the Trust.
This Court is of the view that this factual aspects have to be established only before the Trial Court and it is left open to the petitioner to raise all the defence before the trial Court and the Court below shall consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gunmala Sales Private Limited Vs. Anu Mehta and others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 103 has held that High Court cannot conduct a mini trial or roving enquiry in a 482 petition.
3. Such view of the matter, At this stage, I am not inclined to quash the proceedings as against the petitioners. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought indulgence of the Court, to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners.
4. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also taking note of the nature of the allegations against the petitioners who are school going students, the personal appearance of the petitioners is dispensed with except for receiving copies, for answering the charges, for questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C. and any other dates fixed by the trial Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10.09.2025 dhk To 1.The Juvenile Justice Board, Tiruvallur
2. The Inspector of Police W-14, Tiruvottiyur All Women Police Station Tiruvottiyur, Chennai 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
N. SATHISH KUMAR , J.
3/4
dhk 10.09.2025 4/4