Mariappan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02-01-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR IN CRL OP(MD) NO. 22716 OF 2024 Mariappan S/o. Chellaiah Thevar, 13-A, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, C.N. Village, Tirunelveli District and 2 others Petitioner(s) Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Melapalayam Police Station, Tirunelveli City and another Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):
Mr.K.K.Maheshraja, Advocate For Respondent(s):
Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
ORDER
Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the first respondent.
1/4
2. Notice to the second respondent returnable by 10.02.2025. Private notice is also permitted.
3. The petitioners / A2 to A4, who are facing trial for offences under Sections 109 and 506(i) of the I.P.C., have filed the quash application.
4. The case projected against the petitioners is that A1, who is the son of the petitioners 1 and 2 / A2 and A3, had kidnapped the victim girl, committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl and he is charged for the offences under Sections 366 and 506(i) of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. A1 is not before this Court.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners, who are the parents and family members of A1, have been falsely implicated in this case. The victim girl and A1 were in love with each other and had a close, friendly relationship. As a continuation of their relationship, they also had some physical contact. The allegations against the petitioners are that, on 15.08.2023, A1 kidnapped the victim girl on his two-wheeler and thereafter, committed penetrative sexual assault and later, dropped her in her house. On 16.08.2023, the petitioners are alleged to have contacted the victim girl's father and pressured him to arrange a marriage between A1 and the victim girl. In the 161 Cr.P.C. statement, recorded by the police on 17.08.2023, it is alleged that the petitioners had abetted and 2/4
threatened the victim girl's parents, insisting that they would arrange a marriage between A1 and the victim girl. However, in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement, recorded on 15.09.2023, there is no mention about the abetment or threats.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the primary allegations are against A1. The petitioners, who are arrayed as A2 to A4 (A1's parents and family members), are accused of abetment and criminal intimidation. He conceded that the 164 Cr.P.C. statement did not include any mention of abetment or threats. However, he pointed out that the victim girl had referred to such abetment and threats in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement and therefore strongly opposed the petition.
7. Finding force in the above said submissions, there shall be an order of interim stay of all further proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.28 of 2024, on the file of the Special Court of POCSO Act Cases, Tirunelveli, in respect of the petitioners alone. sd/- 02/01/2025 / TRUE COPY / / 01 /2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
SMN2 3/4
TO 1 THE JUDGE SPECIAL COURT OF POCSO ACT CASES, TIRUNELVELI 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MELAPALAYAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI CITY.
3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN IN CRL OP(MD) NO. 22716 OF 2024 Date :02/01/2025 PSP/ GSV /SAR /06.01.2025/ 4P/ 4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4