BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 14.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17752 of 2024

and

Crl.M.P.(MD).No.10994 of 2024

Jeyaraman ... Petitioner/A7

Vs.

1.The State Rep. by,

The Inspector of Police,

Periyakulam Police Station,

Theni District.

(Crime No.5/2024) ... 1^st Respondent/Complainant

2.Kalaiselvi ... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in Spl.S.C.No.99 of 2024 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial cases under POCSO Act,

Theni and quash the same as illegal insofar as this petitioner is concerned.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Althaf Sheriff

for M/s.Ajmal Associates

For R-1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram

Additional Public Prosecutor

For R-2 : No appearance

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the impugned final report in Spl.S.C.No.99 of 2024 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Theni, which was filed for the offences under Section 10 read with 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 506(1) of IPC as against the petitioner, who is a lawyer.

2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that the victim, who was a minor, had a love affair with the first accused; that the first accused married the victim girl when she was a minor; that the first accused had committed the offence of sexual assault on the victim; that the first accused and the victim girl sought the advice of the petitioner, a lawyer, who had advised the victim girl to depose as instructed by him and also get admitted in a Government Home and not to go to her parents house; and that therefore, the petitioner is guilty of abetment of the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the prosecution relies upon the victim's statement, which only suggests that the petitioner had advised the victim girl to admit herself in a Home and to depose as advised by him as otherwise she along with the first accused would be liable for offence and both of them would go to jail. He would further submit that even assuming that the allegations are true, the petitioner had only offered advice to the victim after the commission of the alleged offence and that even if the prosecution case, that the advice offered by the petitioner is illegal, is accepted to be true, the abetment of the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act would not be made out as none of the ingredients under Section 17 of the POCSO Act, which is akin to Section 109 of IPC have been made out.

4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who would submit that the petitioner had instructed the victim girl to depose in a particular manner, which is illegal; that the points raised by the learned counsel petitioner cannot be adjudicated in a quash petition and sought for dismissal of the quash petition. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also relied upon the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C and the other records collected by the first respondent to prosecute the petitioner for the alleged offences.

5. Though notice is served on the second respondent and her name is printed in the cause list, none has entered appearance on her behalf.

6. As stated earlier, the allegation is that the petitioner as a lawyer had advised the victim girl and the first accused to depose in a particular manner to the Police and to the other authorities. The petitioner had also advised the victim girl to admit herself in a Home. Even assuming that the petitioner as a lawyer ought not to have given any such advice, this Court is of the view that such an act of the petitioner would not attract the offence under Section 17 of the POCSO Act. In order to attract the said offence, the petitioner must have intentionally instigated the first accused to commit the offence or intentionally aided or engaged in conspiracy with the accused to