BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21706 of 2025 Santhosh Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Colachel, Through Special Public Prosecutor, Kanyakumari District.

(Crime No.14 of 2019) ... Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P.No.372 of 2025 in Spl.SC.No.77 of 2019 on the file of the learned Special Court for POCSO at Nagercoil dated 07.10.2025 and set aside the same and summoning the documents from investigation officers.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

Prologue:

This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records relating to the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.372 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.77 of 2019 dated 07.10.2025 on the file of the learned Special Court for POCSO Cases, Nagercoil, set aside the same, and consequently direct the trial Court to summon the documents sought for by the petitioner from (i) the Inspector of Police, Kollemcode Police Station (ii) the Inspector of Police, Kaliakkavilai Police Station and (iii)Superindentent of Police ,Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil under Section 91 Cr.P.C. / Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. The present petition raises an important question touching the very root of a fair trial, that is, whether an accused facing prosecution under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act can be denied access to documents claimed to be essential for impeaching the credibility of prosecution witnesses. The impugned order refuses to summon such documents. This Court is called upon to examine the correctness of that refusal.

Factual Background:

3. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.14 of

2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. After investigation, the offences were altered to Sections 5(l), 5(m), and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Upon taking cognizance, the case was assigned Special S.C.No.77 of 2019.

4. After completion of committal proceedings, the trial commenced before the learned Special Court for POCSO Cases, Nagercoil.

5. On 17.07.2025, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.454 of 2025 seeking recall of P.W.1 to P.W.5 under Section 311 Cr.P.C., 1973. On 12.01.2025, the learned trial Court permitted the counsel for the petitioner to examine P.W.1 and P.W.2. The petitioner contends that P.W.5, who is examined as one of the prosecution witnesses, had an illicit relationship with P.W.1, the mother of the victim child. According to the petitioner, he had caught P.W.1 and P.W.5 red-

handed and warned them.

6. The petitioner's case is that P.W.1’s husband, Suresh (since deceased), had lodged several complaints against P.W.5 before Kollemcode Police Station, and the Inspector of Police had enquired into those complaints and found the allegations to be true.

7. On 25.09.2025, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.372 of 2025 seeking summons to produce:

(i) complaints lodged by the deceased husband of P.W.1 before Kollemcode and Kaliakkavilai Police Stations;

(ii) the connected F.I.R.s;

(iii) enquiry reports of the Inspectors;

(iv) enquiry reports of the Superintendent of Police; and (v) complaints lodged before the Child Welfare Office, Kanyakumari.

8. It is the petitioner’s specific contention that these documents are essential to prove:

(a) the motive for false implication;

(b) prior animosity between the parties;

(c) conduct of P.W.1 and P.W.5;

(d) credibility of prosecution witnesses; and (e) possibility of fabrication of allegations.

Gist of the Impugned order:

9. By order dated 07.10.2025, the learned Special Judge dismissed the application. The learned trial Court held that the documents sought for have no relevance to the allegations of sexual as