Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 1505
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
Kumar & Another – Appellants
Versus
The Union Territory of Puducherry Rep. By the Station House Office, Puducherry & Another – Respondents
Crl.O.P. No. 5507 of 2023 & Crl.M.P. Nos. 3456, 3457 of 2023
Decided On : 13-03-2023
For the Petitioner:V.S. Senthilkumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, K.S. Mohan Doss, Public Prosecutor Puducherry.
The interconnectedness of accused individuals and the allowance for trying different offences committed in the course of the same transaction influenced the court's decision.
Headnote:
POCSO Act - Transfer of Case - Sections 294(b), 506(i), 507 r/w 34 of IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to transfer a case pending before the Special Judge under POCSO Act to another court, arguing that they should be tried before a Judicial Magistrate and not a Special Judge. The case involved allegations of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation against the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners, although not charged under the POCSO Act, were interconnected with the accused and the criminal acts committed, and therefore could not be tried separately. The court also noted that the Special Court is empowered to try offences other than those under the POCSO Act, with which the accused may be charged at the same trial.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners should be tried before a Judicial Magistrate or a Special Judge under the POCSO Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 28(2) of the POCSO Act, which allows the Special Court to try offences other than those under the POCSO Act, and Section 223(d) of the Cr.P.C., which permits charging persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original petition was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 1st respondent to withdraw and transfer the pending case in Spl.S.C.No.94 of 2021 pending on the file of the Hon''ble Special Judge under POCSO Act, Puducherry to that of any other court.)
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to withdraw and transfer the pending case in Spl.S.C.No.94 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Puducherry to any other court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are 2nd & 3rd accused in Spl.S.C.No.94 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Puducherry. The respondent police filed final report against them for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i) r/w 34 of IPC. It is the case of the petitioners that 1st accused was charged for the offence under Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 and 507, 506(i) r/w 34 of IPC and petitioners are not charged under POCSO Act and therefore, they have to be tried before learned Judicial Magistrate and not before the learned Special Judge, who is a Sessions Judge. In the said circumstances, this petition is filed for the transfer of Spl.S.C.No.94 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Puducherry to any other competent court.
3. In reply, learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) submitted that special courts are empowered to try an offences other than an offence under POCSO Act with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 be charged at the same trial. He further submitted that petitioners have also aided, abetted in the commission of offence under POCSO Act. Thus, prayed for dismissal of this petition.
4. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. The gist of the First Information Report allegations are that de-facto complainant''s daughter Priyadarshini and his brother''s daughter Arunthathi are being sexually harassed by accused Sundarapandian, through their cell phone. He was informed by Priyadarshini and Arunthathi that Sundarapandian threatened them that he would morph their photographs and upload in the internet. When de-facto complainant''s wife enquired this with Sundarapandian, Kumar and Thayammal, they have scolded her in filthy language. Accused Sundarapandian repeatedly made call to the cellphone used by Priyadarshini and Arunthathi. On one such occasion, when de-facto complainant''s wife found them talking with the accused, she made a call to that number and when enquired, that person informed her that he made a wrong call. Again, these girls received call from difference cellphone number and when enquired, he revealed is identity as Sundarapandian to her. Then he said to have threatened them to morph their photographs and upload in the Internet. De-facto complainant and his wife went to the house of the accused Sundarapandian and informed them about the conduct of the accused. Accused Kumar and Thayammal had scolded the de-facto complainant and his wife in filthy language and made criminal intimidation with death threat. Therefore, on the basis of the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, First Information Report was registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 507, 506(1) and 34 of IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012. After completion of investigation, respondent police filed final report against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i) r/w 34 of IPC and against 1st accused for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i), 507 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. Learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Puducherry framed charges against 1st accused for the offences under Sections 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Sections 294(b), 506(i), 507 r/w 34 of IPC and against A2 and A3 under Sections 294(b), 507, 506(1) and 34
