Minor.M.Mrityunjay v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR and Crl.MP.Nos.18028 of 2025, 18030 of 2025 and 17140 of 2025 Minor.M.Mrityunjay S/o.V.C.Muralikrishnan, Rep. by his father and natural guardian V.C.Muralikrishnan Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, W-14, Tiruvottiyur All Women Police Station, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai.
2.(Redacted) Respondent(s) PRAYER To call for the records pending in J.C.No.39 of 2025 on the file of the Hon'ble Juvenile Justice Board, Tiruvallur, in Crime No.06 of 2024 registered by the 1st respondent police and quash the same against the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Original Petition.
For Petitioner(s):
M.Rajasekhar For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Vinothraja, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side), for R1
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 respondent police.
2. The petitioner, of-course is a minor and student. The allegations against the petitioner is that he has sexually harassed the defacto complainant's daughter by abusive language and morphing photographs. Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C./183 BNSS Act 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 petitioner sought indulgence of the Court, to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner.
4. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also taking note of
the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, who is a school going student, the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with except for receiving copies, for answering the charges, for questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C./351 BNSS Act and any other dates fixed by the trial Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 26-09-2025 pvs Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes
To The Inspector of Police, W-14, Tiruvottiyur All Women Police Station, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai.
N.SATHISH KUMAR J.
pvs CRL OP No. 26543 of 26-09-2025