KRITHIKA LAKSHMI Vs. THE STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the defacto complainant assailing the order dated 06.02.2015 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 10872 of 2012 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. By the said order dated 06.02.2012, the trial Court declared the second respondent/first accused as Juvenile as contemplated under Section 7-A of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 with a consequent direction to transfer the case to the Juvenile Justice Board, Chennai.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the first accused are neighbours and they are also tuition-mates. It is the further allegation of the prosecution that the defacto complainant and the first accused moved very closely and the first accused repeatedly indulged in sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant. It is the further allegation that even after the defacto complainant was pursuing her Engineering Degree, the first accused had sexual intercourse with her. It is alleged by the defacto complainant that she was made to believe by the first accused that he would marry her and on such false promise, the first accused had forcibly committed the offence of rape. In other words, under the pretext of marriage, the first accused had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly. However, three months before the date of complaint, the first accused refused to talk to her and he had even switched off his mobile phone. In such circumstances, the defacto complainant had given the complaint to the respondent police on 03.03.2010. On the basis of the complaint dated 03.03.2010 given by the defacto complainant, the case in Crime No. 5 of 2010 came to be registered against the first accused for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. After investigation, final report was filed against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 376, 417, 420 and 506 (ii) of IPC before the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. Subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and it was taken on file by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C. No. 130 of 2011. Later, it was made over to the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai for further proceedings.

(3.) After framing of the charge, the accused 1 to 4 have filed Crl.OP No. 9823 of 2011 before this Court to quash the charge sheet filed against them. By an order dated 20.06.2012, this Honourable Court quashed the charge sheet only in so far as accused 2 to 4, who are father, mother and uncle of A-1.