IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA &

Crl.M.P.No. 1 5107 of 2025

1.R.Brindha

2.Gowtham ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station – East, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore.

2.Ayeesha @ Mumtaj ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to call for the records in SC.No.171 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Mahila Court / Additional Special Court for trial of cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore.

For Petitioners : Mr. R.Vivekananthan For Respondent 1 : Mr. K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent 2 : Mr. R.Murugabharathi

O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed by A3 and A4 seeking to quash the proceeding pending against them in SC.No.171 of 2025 on the file of the learned Mahila Court / Additional Special Court for trial of cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore, for the offences under Sections 417, 376 (1), 294 (b) and 506 (ii) of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant had a love affair with R.Gokul (son of 1st petitioner herein) in the year 2017. In December 2017, the said Gokul called the de facto complainant to his house to introduce her to his friends and finding no one in the house, Gokul utilised the situation and had sexual intercourse with her stating that she is his future wife and promised to marry her. It is further alleged that Gokul has also had sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant in her house when her parents were not available.

3. It is further alleged that the de facto complainant insisted Gokul to speak with his father about their marriage. On 16.02.2024, Gokul, along with his parents and brother, came to one of their neighbours, Usha’s house to speak about their marriage, where the 1st petitioner and her husband refused to arrange the marriage of their son Gokul with the de facto complainant and informed that they have fixed a girl for marriage from their own caste for their son. Thereafter, the said Gokul informed the de facto complainant that he spoke to her for the past seven years only for relieving his stress and time pass. Then the petitioners along with A2, husband of the 1st petitioner threatened the de facto complainant that if she tries to marry Gokul, she will face dire consequences. Hence, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police against Gokul, Ravichandran (Father of A1) and the petitioners herein.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the mother and younger brother of the main accused.

He would further submit that the case as against the petitioners cannot be maintained since other than general and vague allegations, there is no specific allegation as if the petitioners have abused the de facto complainant and criminally intimidated her. The uncontroverted allegations do not make out ingredients of offences under Section 294 (b) and 506 (ii) IPC, as against the present petitioners. Therefore, the proceeding as against the petitioners who have no role in this case is an abuse of process of law and he would seek to quash the proceedings as against the petitioners. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (1996) 4 SCC 17 and the judgement of this Court in Murugavel Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station reported in 2019 SCC Online Mad 26824.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

1st respondent police would submit that A1 had cheated the de facto complainant and committed rape on her and when she questioned the family members of A1, the petitioners have abused her in filthy language and have also intimidated her. He would further submit that there are statements supp