CRL OP/23774/2026 of Dasthakir Vs The state rep by Inspector of Police on 29 October 2026

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in SPL.SC No.223 of 2025 pending on the file of the Learned Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram) for the offence under Sections 87, 65(1), 351(2) of BNS and Section 5(1) read with Section 6(1), 17 of POCSO Act as against the petitioners.

2. The petitioners have filed this petition under the caption of compromise quash. The victim girl is aged about 14 years and the father of the victim appeared before this Court by entering into compromise with the accused. However, on perusal of the FIR, it is revealed that the petitioner is that the petitioner, who is a married man had committed penetrative sexual assault against the victim girl aged about 14 years on several occasions in his residence.

3. On perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180(3) of BNSS there are specific allegations against the petitioners in order to attract the alleged offences and the same can be concluded only at the stage of trial by letting evidence. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition.

( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 12:49:18 pm )

CRL OP No. 23774 of 2026

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

5. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs.

( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 12:49:18 pm )

CRL OP No. 23774 of 2026

K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain offences complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not and whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial.

7. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage as to whether the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious or not. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained.

8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in SPL.SC No.223 of 2025 pending on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 12:49:18 pm )

CRL OP No. 23774 of 2026

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 25-08-2026 SMA To

1. The Inspector of Police Baluchetty Chanthiram Police Station, Kancheepuram.

2. Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 12:49:18 pm )

CRL OP No. 23774 of 2026

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. SMA CRL OP No. 23774 of 2026 25-08-2026

( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 12:49:18 pm )