IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.02.2016 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Crl.O.P.Nos.1584 & 1585 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.745 & 746 of 2016

1.P.Yuvaprakash 2.S.Karthikeyan

3.N.Rasu @ Velayutham

4.N.Duraisamy

5.R.Manickam @ Thirunavukkarasu

6.N.Paramasivam

7.P.Nirmaladevi ... Petitioners in Crl OPs

1584 & 1585/16 Vs.

State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Erode South Police Station, Crime No.22 of 2015, Erode District. ... Respondent in Crl.OP.NO

1584 & 1585/16 Prayer Crl.O.P.No.1584 of 2016: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to withdraw the case in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2015 on the file of the learned Session's Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode, Erode District and to transfer the same to any other Mahila Court at Tirupur, Salem or Namakkal.

Prayer Crl.O.P.No.1585 of 2016: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 29.12.2015 made in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2015 on the file of the learned Session's Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode, Erode District.

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias, APP.

* * * * *

COMMON ORDER Crl.O.P.No.1584 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioners praying to transfer the case in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2015 from the file of the learned Session's Judge (Magalir Neethi Mandram - Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode, to any other Mahila Court at Tirupur, Salem or Namakkal.

2.Crl.O.P.No.1585 of 2016 has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 29.12.2015 made in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2015 on the file of the learned Session's Judge (Magalir Neethi Mandram - Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode, Erode District.

3.Since both the criminal original petitions are inter-

related to each other, they are disposed of by way of this common order.

4.The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of these petition, are as follows:-

4-1.The petitioners herein are accused in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Session's Judge (Magalir Neethi Mandram - Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto-complainant viz., one Tr.Abdual Hameed lodged a complaint to the respondent-Police stating that he has two female children and his younger daughter Madheena is aged 17 years (running 18 years). On 13.01.2015, the defacto-complainant went to Karur for some work, and at that time, his daughter Madheena had stomach pain. Hence, his elder daughter Wahitha and his younger sister Ameena had taken Madheena to hospital and while they were returning to home, near Rita School, Shasthri Nagar, at about 2.30 hours, one Yuvaprakash along with two others came to the spot and kidnapped Madheena and escaped from the spot by two wheeler. Immediately, the same was informed to the defacto-complainant through his elder daughter over phone. Thereafter, they searched Madheena in the nearby areas, but it ended in vain. Hence, the defacto- complainant lodged the complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.22 of 2015 under Section 366(A) IPC & under Sections 6 & 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, by the respondent-Police.

4-2.On completion of investigation, the respondent-

Police filed charge-sheet before the Magali Court, Erode and the same was taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2015 on the file of the Mahila Court, Erode on 10.08.2015. Thereafter, charges were framed and the petitioners/accused stoutly denied their complicity in the offence. During the course of the trial, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses besides marking voluminous documents. The petitioners/accused have defended the case stating that the daughter of the defacto-complainant, who was examined as P.W.3, was a major as evident from the deposition of the Doctor (P.W.9). According to the petitioners, the prosecution under the POCSO Act is not at all permissible in view of the fact that the victim girl/P.W.3 was not a minor as on the date of the alleged occurrence and that the