Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 47356 (MAD)

P. Radha v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep ByThe Inspector Of Police, Awps-Sivagangai

CRL OP(MD)/13397/2026 · 2026-07-06

R Vijayakumar

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Crl. O.P.(MD) No.13397 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR Crl.O.P(MD).No.13397 of 2026 and Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.13076 and 13078 of 2026 P.Radha ... Petitioner Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by the Inspector Of Police, AWPS – Sivagangai, All Women Police Station, Sivagangai District. (Crime No.15/2023). 2. Ramachandran, The Protection Officer, District Child Protection Office, Sivagangai District. 3. xxxx(Victim) ... Respondents PRAYER: To call for the records in connection with the Impugned Charge Sheet in Spl.SC.No.31/2024 on the file of the Learned Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, (Fast Track Court) Sivagangai District in so far as this petitioner / accused No.2 is concerned and quash the same as illegal. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P.(MD) No.13397 of 2026 For petitioner : Mr.C.Gangai Amaran For R1 : Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER The present criminal original petition has been filed by the 2nd accused in Spl.SC.No.31 of 2024, on the file of the learned Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, (Fast Track Court) Sivagangai District, seeking to quash the charge sheet wherein the petitioner is charged with the offences under Sections 10 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 2. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the petitioner is said to have tortured the two year old baby with burn injuries. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the entire injuries caused on the child is only due to the overt acts of A1 and A3 and 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P.(MD) No.13397 of 2026 the petitioner is not no way connected. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material records of the case. 5. A perusal of the 161(3) statement of the Doctor revealed that the child has sustained injuries. It is the contention of the petitioner that the injuries were caused by A1 and A3 and not by A2. The said facts has to be proved only during the trial. 6. In such circumstances, this Court cannot quash the criminal original petition. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The personal appearance of the petitioner shall stand dispensed with. 06.07.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P.(MD) No.13397 of 2026 rgm R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J. rgm To: 1. The Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Fast Track Court) Sivagangai District. 2. The Inspector Of Police, All Women Police Station, Sivagangai District. (Crime No.15/2023). 3. Ramachandran, The Protection Officer, District Child Protection Office, Sivagangai District. 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.O.P(MD).No.13397 of 2026 and Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.13076 and 13078 of 2026 06.07.2026 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis