C.Samiyappan vs State by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Aug 25, 2025

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1817047

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1817047
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Decided On: Aug 25, 2025
Case Number: CRL RC/482/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C.Samiyappan

Respondent

State by

Excerpt

.....(fast track mahila court) erode and split up the case and direct the separate trial for the petitioner. for petitioner : mr.k.sasindran for respondent : mr.a. gopinath government advocate (crl.side)orderthis criminal revision has been filed as against the order dated 31.01.2024 passed in in crl.m.p no.1270 of 2023 in spl. s.c no.95 of 2022 by the learned sessions judge, magalir neethi mandram, (fast track mahila court) erode, thereby dismissed the petition filed under sections 216, 218 and 223 of cr.p.c to alter or modify the charges and tried this petitioner separately.2. the petitioner is facing charges for the offences punishableunder sections 9(m) and 10 of pocso act, 2012. the victim child was aged about 12 years at the time of the occurrence. the first occurrence was taken place on 06.05.2022, at about 1.30 p.m by one accused. on the same day, at about 4.30 p.m, another accused committed the same offence. though there is no nexus between the two accused, the victim child is one and the same. therefore, instead of calling the victim twice for the evidence and for the proceedings, both the accused were charged in the single charge sheet and subjected for trial. hence, the trial court had rightly dismissed the petition seeking for separate trial.3. accordingly, this criminal revision case is dismissed. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. index:yes/no internet:yes/no uma to1. the sessions judge, magalir neethi mandram, (fast track mahila court) erode.2. the inspector of police, 3.the public prosecutor high court of madras. g.k.ilanthiraiyan,j uma and

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 25.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and C.Samiyappan ... Petitioner ..Vs. State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Crime No.47 of 2022. ... Respondent Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the

order dated 31.01.2024 passed in Crl.M.P No.1270 of 2023 in Spl. S.C

No.95 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court) Erode and split up the case and direct the separate trial for the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sasindran For Respondent : Mr.A. Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This criminal revision has been filed as against the order dated 31.01.2024 passed in in Crl.M.P No.1270 of 2023 in Spl. S.C No.95 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court) Erode, thereby dismissed the petition filed under Sections 216, 218 and 223 of Cr.P.C to alter or modify the charges and tried this petitioner separately.

2. The petitioner is facing charges for the offences punishable

under Sections 9(m) and 10 of POCSO Act, 2012. The victim child was aged about 12 years at the time of the occurrence. The first occurrence was taken place on 06.05.2022, at about 1.30 p.m by one accused. On the same day, at about 4.30 p.m, another accused committed the same offence. Though there is no nexus between the two accused, the victim child is one and the same. Therefore, instead of calling the victim twice for the evidence and for the proceedings, both the accused were charged in the single charge sheet and subjected for trial. Hence, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the petition seeking for separate trial.

3. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No uma To

1. The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court) Erode.

2. The Inspector of Police, 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J uma and

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2025 Same Parties C.Samiyappan vs State by Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan