Crl.O.P.No. 11253 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.04.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.11253 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.7520 of 2025 Venkatachalapathi ..... Petitioner Vs 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women police station, Krishnagiri District crime no.39 of 2023 2.Pushpa ..... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and quash the proceeding in Spl.SC.No.14 of 2024 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri. For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Jayachandran For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.14 of 2024 pending on the file of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 11253 of 2025 the Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, while the victim girl was returning home from school, the accused pressed her breast and engaged in eve-teasing. Hence, the complaint. 3. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.39 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. After completion of the investigation, the first respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri in Spl.S.C.No.14 of 2024. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no such incident, as alleged by the second respondent, had taken place. He further submitted that the complaint itself was lodged only after a period of six months from the date of occurrence. There is absolutely unjustified delay in lodging the complaint and a false case has been foisted as against the petitioner. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent. Perused the materials available on record. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 11253 of 2025 6. A perusal of the records reveals that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner in order to attract the offences under Sections 7 and 8 of POCSO Act. 7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 11253 of 2025 disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain offences complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not and whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial. 10. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage that whether the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious or not. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 11253 of 2025 Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.14 of 2024 pending on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. However, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 16.04.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order Lpp To 1.The Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri. 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women police station, Krishnagiri District 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 11253 of 2025 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. Lpp Crl.O.P.No. 11253 of 2025 16.04.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis