IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P.No.19346 of 2025 P.Sudhakar ... Petitioner Vs.

1. State represented by Inspector of Police, The Special Investigation Team All Women Police Station, Egmore, Chennai.

Crime No.33 of 2024

2. Sumathi ... Respondents (R2 is impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 16.12.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.24001 of 2025 in Crl.R.C.No.2063 of 2025)

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the order dated 30.07.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.745 of 2025 in Spl.SC.No.27 of 2025 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai and allow the above Criminal Revision Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thamarai selvan for Mr.S.Kamalesh For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

For R2 : Dr.R.Sampath Kumar

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the dismissal of his discharge petition by an order dated 30.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.745 of 2025 in Spl.SC.No.27 of 2025 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai. The petitioner is facing prosecution for the offences under Section 22(3) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act) and Section

351(3) BNS.

2. The gist of the allegation in the final report against the petitioner / 2^nd Accused is that the petitioner belongs to a political party; that he was aware that the 1^st accused was involved in the alleged offences committed under the POCSO Act against a victim girl; that in order to safeguard the 1^st accused, he misled the police by making a false allegation against an innocent boy by name Mukesh, who was a juvenile and happens to be a relative of the victim’s mother; that on the basis of the said false allegation, the 3^rd accused, who was investigating the case forced the victim girl to make a false statement implicating the said boy and the petitioner further criminally intimidated the defacto complainant not to proceed against the 1^st accused.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner sought for discharge before the Trial Court on the ground that the allegations against him would not attract the offences alleged; that the petitioner only stated before the police that the 1^st accused was innocent and that the said statement would not amount to making a false accusation; that the allegation would also not attract the offence of criminal intimidation and therefore, the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), per contra, would submit that the case was originally investigated by the 3^rd accused; that the 3^rd accused forced the victim girl to give a false statement that the offence was committed by one Mukesh who was a juvenile, as a result of which, the said Mukesh was made an accused; that thereafter the investigation was transferred to the CBI by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in HCP.No.2408 and 2334 of 2024; that the State challenged the said order before the Honb'le Supreme Court; that the Honb'le Supreme Court had stayed the direction to transfer the investigation to the CBI and entrusted the investigation to a Special Investigation Team (hereinafter referred to as SIT), which had filed the impugned final report accusing the petitioner of the offences alleged against him; and that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the discharge petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant reiterated the submissions made before the learned Sessions Judge and would submit that the case has a chequered history and in the light of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the materials available on record, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in dismissin