IMPORTANT POINTS
• There was any tutoring of the minor victim girl, it is rather satisfactory to note that the police has at least the minimum fairness in having taken statements of the two boy students, whereby they had clearly stated that they were sitting next to the seat of the minor victim girl and that they have not seen any such bad incident, which is said to have been done by the petitioner on the minor victim girl, etc. Therefore, it is clear like the blue sky that the abovesaid allegations are factually wrong and incorrect. Therefore, in the light of these aspects, it is only to be held that the inception and continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings is nothing but a sheer abuse to the process of the court.
• In a case of sexual offence where an accused is falsely implicated, the real victim in such false cases is not the “alleged victim” of sexual violence, but the accused, who has been falsely implicated in the crime of sexual violence, which has been instituted falsely

ORDER :

The prayer in the above Crl.M.C filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C is as follows:

“............to allow this Criminal Miscellaneous Case by quashing Annexure-A-2, charge Sheet and all further proceedings in S.C.No.481/2018 of the District and Sessions Court, Kottayam, arising from Crime No.997/2018 of Pampady Police Station, Kottayam so as to secure the ends of justice.”

2. Heard Sri.M.Revikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R-1 State of Kerala and Sri.Akhil Bhaskar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent (minor victim girl).

3. The petitioner has been arrayed as accused in the impugned Annexure-A1 Crime No.997/2018 of Pambadi Police Station, Kottayam, for offence punishable under Sec.354A of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of the first information statement given by the minor victim girl then aged 13 years on 15.08.2018 at about 3.30 p.m., in respect of the alleged incidents which happened on the previous day (14.08.2018) at about 2.45 p.m. in the afternoon. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the Special Sessions Court notified to deal with POCSO cases, Kottayam and the case is now pending as Sessions Case S.C No.481/2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court notified to deal with POCSO cases, Kottayam. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that there are no proper materials even in the admitted prosecution materials as revealed by Annexure-A1 to implicate the petitioner for criminal culpability for the alleged offence of Sec.354A of the IPC. Further it is pointed out that the minor victim girl has not disclosed the commission of any offence by the petitioner, except making certain allegations which does not disclose any such offence. The further case of the petitioner is that on coming to know that the said allegation in the FIS will not constitute any offence, the prosecution has changed the story and the 2nd respondent minor victim girl has given a new version adding embellishments and improvisations to the prosecution case and at the same time, the other eye witnesses have given statements to the police which also form part of Annexure-A2 final report/charge sheet, wherein they would say that no such incident as alleged by the minor victim girl has happened in the school van at the relevant time. It appears that the petitioner is operating a school van for transportation of school children in which the minor victim girl and some of the charge witnesses who are the students of the school have been travelling for taking them from their residences to the school concerned.

4. The pertinent allegation therein is that on 14.08.2018 at about 2.45 p.m., when the minor victim girl and some of the other students have returning back from the school to their respective residences in the school van, the petitioner was also there in the van. By about then, most of the girl students who were her friends had got down from the van. Then she and two other boy students sat on the last seat of the van. Thereupon, the petitioner had taken a nearby to the minor victim girl and that he had hit her hands with his shoulders. That the minor victim girl did not like the behaviour of the petitioner and she showed her indignation and told the petitioner to go and sit in another seat. Thereupon, the petitioner had changed the seat and sat on a different seat. Thereafter, she had alighted from the van and reached the house. Incidentally, it is also stated that the petitioner had told her then that she should not reveal the said incident to anyone, etc. Hence, going by the admitted allegations in Annexure-A1 FIS, the main and pertinent allegation raised by the 2nd respondent- minor victim girl against the petitioner is as follows:

xxx xxx

5. The core of the allegation is that the petitioner had hit on the girl’s hand using his shoulder. From the said allegation itself, it is not possible for anyone to infer or impute that the sa