(Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.8014 of 2018 on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same. (Prayer is amended vide order dated 24.01.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.972 of 2019 in Crl.O.P.No.27783 of 2018)

1. These petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8014 of 2018 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 342, 406, 506(ii) IPC r/w 75 & 77 of Juvenile Justice Act.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.29665 of 2018 submitted that there is no material or evidence to substantiate the charge as alleged by the second respondent herein. The alleged occurrence said to have been taken place in the month of January, 2018 and the second respondent has chosen to lodge complaint after seven months i.e., in the month of August, 2018. The first respondent did not follow the procedure contemplated under Section 31 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Since the first respondent ought to have been recorded statement from the juvenile before the committee as contemplated under Section 31 of Juvenile Justice Act, as such the entire proceedings vitiated. The offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act is not at all attracted as against the petitioner, since it is applicable only to the persons, who have control over the children who have been subjected to cruelty. Even as per the case of the complainant, the first accused is said to have been mixed the sleeping pills with the milk and given to the children. Therefore there is no question of administration of Narcotic drug or Psychotropic substances on the children.

2.1. Further he submitted that the sleeping pills did not fall under the Narcotic drug or Psychotropic substance, as such the offences under Sections 75 & 77 of Juvenile Justice Act are not at all attracted as against the petitioners. There are no ingredients to substantiate the said charged. Further he submitted that entire allegations are bald and vague as against the petitioners and there is no specific averments to substantiate the charges for the offences under Sections 294(b), 342, 406, 506(ii) IPC r/w 75 & 77 of Juvenile Justice Act. To support of his arguments, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) 2006(2) CTC 642 - Sri Krishna Tile and Potteries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai

(ii) 2008 (2) MWN(Crl.) 288 - Rajan Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police

(iii) 2015(4) CTC 109 - S.Selvakumar Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police

(iv) CDJ 2000 MHC 1235 - Ramalingam & anr Vs. State of Tamilnadu & anr

(v) 2005 Crl.L.J. 3903 - Satinder Kour Vs. S.D. Singh

(vi) CDJ 2006 MHC 2923 - S.Isaiyendhi Vs. Inspector of Police

(vii) 2009 (10) SCC 184 - Neelu Chopra & anr Vs. Bharti

Therefore, he prayed for quashment of the entire proceeding.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/defacto complainant submitted that there are two accused, in which the petitioner in Crl.O.P.27783 of 2018 is arraigned as A1 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.29665 of 2018 is arraigned as A2. The first accused is the wife of the second respondent/complainant. The second respondent and the first accused got married on 06.07.1997 and gave birth to two children by twins. In fact at the time of marriage, the second respondent was working as clerk in the Railway Cooperative Society and the petitioner/A1 in Crl.O.P.27783 of 2018 had just completed her graduate and thereafter the defacto complainant has spent money for her master degree in Physical Education. While being so, the second accused was introduced by the sister of the first accused, who hails from Delhi. They developed friendship and with his help, the first accused interested in politics and also spent money lavishly. Utilizing these circumstances, the second accused fal