The court affirmed that a grave suspicion suffices for framing charges, emphasizing the need for trial when prima facie evidence warrants it.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN &

Crl.M.P. No. 18538 of 2025 The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pennagaram, Dharmapuri District.

(Cr. No. 20 of 2023) ..Petitioner Vs.

N. Sagadevan ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS to call for the records relating to the order dated 03.01.2025 in Crl.M.P. No. 214 of 2024 in Spl.S.C. No. 13 of 2024 by the learned Special Court for POCSO Act, Dharmapuri and to set aside the same.

For Petitioner :: Mr.R. Vinothraja Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

For Respondent :: Mr.R. John Sathyan Senior counsel for Mr. Swami Subramanian O R D E R The present revision is filed by the State challenging the order dated 03.01.2025 allowing the discharge petition filed by the respondent herein, who is facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 5(l), 5(a)(4), 6(1) of POCSO Act, 2012 Sections 506(i), 363, 366 of IPC and Sections 67(B)(a) and 67(B)(b) of Information Technology Act, 2000.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim, who was a minor, was married to one Palanisamy; that she had matrimonial dispute with her husband and in-laws; that when she complained to the Police, the respondent, who was working as Special Sub-Inspector of Police, under the guise of conducting enquiry, became friendly with the victim girl and thereafter, committed penetrative sexual assault on 31.08.2022.

3. The respondent sought for discharge before the Trial Court on the ground that in the FIR, which was registered against the victim’s husband, in-laws and parents under Sections 5(i), 5(j)(ii), 6(1), 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 9 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, there was no allegation as against the respondent; that the only allegation was that he used to talk to the victim girl frequently through whatsapp; that the Police, without registering any separate FIR, has filed final report as against the respondent; that the victim has made inconsistent statements as could be seen from the contents of the FIR and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement made by her and that the respondent may not be allowed to face the ordeal of trial.

4. The Trial Court found that there are inconsistencies in the statements made by the victim in the FIR and in her subsequent statements. Further, the Trial Court found that no FIR was registered as against the respondent and that contrary to the procedure, two final reports in respect of one FIR had been filed. The Trial Court, by the order impugned, allowed the discharge petition. Aggrieved by the said order, as already stated, the State is before this Court.

5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the ground on which the respondent has been discharged cannot be countenanced; that there is no infirmity in filing two final reports as, during the course of investigation, it came to light that the respondent had committed the aforesaid offences; that non-registration of FIR as against the respondent would not be fatal as observed by the Trial Court and since the petitioner has collected materials to substantiate the charge against the respondent, the impugned order has to be set aside.

6. Mr.R. John Sathyan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent fairly conceded the legal position that the filing of final report against the respondent cannot be faulted only because there was no FIR as against the respondent. He would however submit that, on merits, the prosecution has not produced any material to hold that there is prima f