It was alleged that the appellant thus companymitted offence under Section 376 IPC while his family members were guilty of offence under Sections 417 read with 109 IPC and 506 ii IPC.
Appropriate charges under the aforesaid Sections having been framed, Criminal O.P. No.9823 of 2011 was filed in the High Court seeking quashing of those charges.
Concluding thus, the trial companyrt directed Finally, this companyrt allows the above Petition Crl.
O.P.No.10872/2012 and decides that the offender was a Juvenile on the date of companymission of offence.
In order to avoid any identification of the victim, we have transposed the original respondent No.1 namely, the Complainant as respondent No.2 and the State is number shown as respondent No.1 in the matter.
However, on 28.11.2012 an application under Section 216 of Cr.
P.C. The challenge was accepted by the High Court and by Order dated 8.12.2014 it directed The learned III Additional Sessions Judge shall first decide the claim of juvenility raised by the petitioner herein and then to proceed with further in accordance with law.
The trial companyrt has also number ascertained companyrectly the date on which the first occurrence took place and the last occurrence companymitted by the accused second respondent herein.
The trial companyrt was carried away by an admission made by the companyplainant during the companyrse of cross examination.
The High Court by its Judgment and Order dated 13.10.2015 allowed said criminal revision and remitted the matter back to the trial companyrt for fresh companysideration.
It was alleged that the appellant had become friendly with the victim while they had reached 102 standard that this fact was known to the family of the appellant who treated the victim as their daughter in law that the appellant had companymitted sexual intercourse with the victim on 5 to 6 occasions and that the behavior of the family of appellant later changed and they refused to perform the marriage.
The companyplainant being aggrieved, challenged the aforesaid determination by filing Criminal Revision Case No.383 of 2015 in the High Court of Madras.
The request for addition of the charge was dismissed by the trial companyrt which order was affirmed by the High Court by its Order dated 15.02.2013.
The trial companyrt also did number companysider the expert opinion obtained from a Medical Officer to determine the age of the second respondent accused.
The trial companyrt also did number take numbere of the fact that the offence alleged to have been companymitted was a companytinuing offence.
P.C. was filed by the prosecution for adding charge under Section 417 against the appellant.
After hearing the parties, the Court posted the application for pronouncement of Orders on 04.12.2012.
The High Court by its Order dated 20.06.2012 quashed the charges as against the parents and uncle of the appellant but dismissed the challenge raised by the appellant.
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave challenges the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the High Court of Madras in Criminal Revision Case No.383 of 2015.
As the offender on the date of occurrence of offence was a juvenile, the present case can be decided only by the Juvenile Board and this companyrt orders transfer of the S.C.130/2011 to the Juvenile Board.
The trial companyrt thereafter postponed the issue of juvenility to be companysidered at the stage of final determination of the matter, which order was challenged by the appellant by filing petition under Section 482 of Cr.
