Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.MANIKUMAR, J
S.Aranganathan – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of allegations and initial police investigation (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding framing and alteration of charges (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on prosecution and evidence (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. legal foundation for alteration of charges (Para 17 , 18) |
| 5. conclusion and dismissal of revision case (Para 24 , 25) |
ORDER
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 2nd 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.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when Inspector o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
