The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grounds for quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C should not be considered based on the validity of evidence, and the trial Court should proceed with the trial on merits.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records relating to the complaint in Spl.SC.No.16 of 2021 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri and quash the same as far as the petitioners are concerned.)

1. This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Spl.SC.No.16 of 2021 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 366, 366(A) IPC & 5(1), 6, 16, 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 9, 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 in Crime No.11 of 2020, as against the petitioners.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.08.2020 at about 14.30 hrs, one, Santhosini lodged a complaint against the petitioners before the respondent stating that in the year 2018, the defacto complainant was studying 11th standard. At that time, A1 namely Sureshkumar had love with the defacto complainant and on 03.02.2018, when the defacto complainant was washing the clothes near the Well in her land, at that time the Sureshkumar kidnapped the defacto complainant and married and also stayed three days in the house of his parental uncle i.e. Paneer. On 06.02.2018, the Village Administrative Officer along with Revenue Inspector came to know about the defacto complainant's marriage and came to the Paneer's house to enquire and also advised that the defacto complainant was a minor and should not conduct the marriage and informed to them to hand over the defacto complainant to her parents. On 07.02.2018, all the accused got together and conducted the defacto complainant's marriage with the first accused. Thereafter, the first accused took the defacto complainant to his house. At that time, the first accused family members advised that it is a minor marriage and unnecessary problem would arise. Therefore, they advised the first accused to leave the defacto complainant in her parent's house. Now the defacto complainant has become major. Therefore, on 01.07.2020, the defacto complainant's father approached the first accused family through one, Shivalingam to talk about defacto complainant's marriage with the first accused and the defacto complainant came to know that they are demanding dowry for conducting the marriage. Hence the present complaint is lodged against the petitioners and others.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 366, 366(A) IPC & 5(1), 6, 16, 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 9, 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, as against the petitioners and the same has been taken cognizance in Spl.SC.No.16 of 2021 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

4. The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.

5. Heard Mr.V.Sakkarapani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the first respondent, and Mr.T.Panchatsaram, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

6. It is seen that there are specific overt act as against the petitioners and they are not entitled for quashment of entire proceedings. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., wherein it is held as follows:-

" 12.So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, there was