The main legal point established in the judgment is that a discharge petition can be allowed if there is no prima facie case made out against the accused to frame charges.

1. Dismissing the Petitioner's application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C for discharging him from the case, the present revision is filed.

2. The Petitioner is A8 in Special S.C.No.21 of 2015, on the file of learned Mahila Fast Track Court, Theni, Theni District. Earlier based on a complaint given by one Subbulakhsmi alleging that her minor daughter one Kalaiselvi, who was studying in +2 standards at Periyakulam was kidnapped by one Ramesh, who was arrayed as A1 in this case and then he took her to Coimbatore. Based on the above complaint, a criminal case has been registered against seven accused in Cr.No.246 of 2014 for the offence under Section 363 r/w Section 109 IPC. During investigation, involvement of this Petitioner was also came to know and a final report has been filed against eight accused arraying the Petitioner as eighth accused for an offence under Section 366(A) of IPC and Section 4 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012.Thereafter, the Petitioner filed the present petition to discharge him from the above charges on the ground that there is no prima facie case made out against the Petitioner to proceed against the Petitioner. The said petition has been dismissed. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed.

3. Heard the submissions of Mr. B. Jeyakumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. C. Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and perused the materials placed before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that from the materials available on record, absolutely there is no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner to proceed with the case. After kidnapping the victim, A1 took her to Coimbatore and stayed there in the house of one Murugan. At that time, the Petitioner being the relative of A1, came there and advised her to marry him, and in the further statement of the victim also says so. Except the above, there is no other material available on record to show that the Petitioner has committed any offence. The Court below without considering the same, dismissed the discharge petition filed by the Petitioner.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State would submit that prima facie materials available on record and after kidnapping the minor girl, A1 took her to Coimbatore and stayed there and at that time, all the accused came there and also abet her to marry A1. Hence material is available against this Petitioner. Considering the same, the trial Court dismissed the discharge Petition filed by him and there is no interference called for in this case.

6. I have heard the rival submissions of either side and considered the materials available on record.

7. The charges levelled against all the accused are under Section 366(A) IPC and Section 4 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012.The case of the prosecution is that on 1.6.2004 at about 8.45 a.m. A1 had kidnapped the victim girl from Periyakulam and went to Coimbatore and stayed there in A9's house. A2 and A9 have compelled the minor victim to marry A1 and to have sexual inter-course with him. So far as this Petitioner is concerned, he is arrayed as A8. The mother of the victim girl in her further statement given under Section 161(3) CR.P.C says as follows:

ANY OTHER LANGUAGE:

And in the further statement of the victim girl, under Section 161 Cr.P.C, she has given the very similar statement. Except the above, there is no other material available on record against the Petitioner. On a perusal of the Section 161(3)statement of the victim girl as well as her mother, the Petitioner along with some other relatives only went to the house of A9 where A1 and victim was staying and advised her and the same cannot be considered as abetment which falls under Section 17 of the POCSO Act. Apart from the above, from the statement of the victim girl, she has not stated anything about the Petitioner as if the Petitioner came to the house of A9 and a