The court upheld the alteration of charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act based on sufficient evidence, reinforcing legal protections for child victims.

ORDER 

Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2015 made in S.C.No.429 of 2014, framing charge under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 , present revision case has been filed.

2. Case of the defacto complainant is that his daughter aged about 8 years was studying in a tuition centre, run by the daughter of the revision petitioner/accused. On 25.02.2014, the defacto complainant's daughter came home at 4.00pm crying and stated that the revision petitioner/accused fondled her breast and pressed her private parts. Hence, a complaint was lodged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 . It was registered as Cr.No.334 of 2014 for an offence under Section 12 of the Act. Upon investigation, the Inspector of Police, W8-All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam, Chennai, the 2^nd respondent, closed the case as mistake of fact. RC notice was served on the respondent/defacto complainant in R.C.No.36/14 dated 29.04.2014.

3. Being aggrieved, a Protest Petition was filed in Crl.M.P.No.7589 of 2014 dated 05.05.2014 before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai. The accused was summoned by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai. The Inspector of Police, W8- All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam, Chennai, the 2^nd respondent herein, filed a counter affidavit dated 24.06.2014, stating that the case was closed as Mistake of Fact. Subsequently, on the final report dated 04.12.2014, filed by the Inspector of Police, W8-All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam, Chennai, charge has been framed under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 . The Charge framed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, is extracted hereunder 

4. Assailing the correctness of the order, framing charge, Ms.S.Thankira, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the Court of Sessions, Mahila Court was aware of the existence of the final report, service of RC notice on the defacto complainant, Cr.No.334 of 2014, has been referred, as mistake of fact, filing of a Protest Petition Crl.MP.No.7589 of 2014, filed by the defacto complainant and the orders passed thereon, framing of charge, based on the final report, filed on 04.12.2014 under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C is untenable.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when Inspector of Police, W8-All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam, Chennai, has already filed the counter affidavit in the protest petition, to the effect that the investigation and the recorded statements indicated political animosity and that Cr.No.334 of 2014, has already been closed as mistake of fact, it would not be proper to alter the charge, without there being a further investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also made submissions on the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, examined by the police. In addition to the above, she submitted that there is no possibility of committing the offence, in a tuition centre, in the midst of other children.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are materials for alteration of charge from Section 12 to Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the final report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. dated 04.12.2014, indicates the same. Sessions Case No.429 of 2014, has been posted for examination of witnesses LW1 to LW3 on 06.03.2015 and he prayed to sustain the impugned order.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

9. From the material on record, it could be deduced that on the complaint