JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 of 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1231 of 2021 in Spl.S.C.No.110 of 2020, on the file of Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, in Crime No.343 of 2019, dated 22.03.2022, before the W.24, AWPS.) 1. This Criminal Revision is filed against the order of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, dated 22.03.2022 in Crl.MP.No.1231 of 2021 in Spl.S.C.No.110 of 2020, in and by which the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him from the case was rejected by the learned Magistrate. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl was aged 16 years at the time of occurrence in the year 2019. She was a school dropout and was working in a Super Market. Upon repeated insistence and pressure by the petitioner/accused, she accepted the love proposal made by him and both were in a relationship. Thereafter, on 28.09.2019, the petitioner/accused pressurized the victim and the victim also went along with him on a promise that they can get married and live together. Thereafter, they went up to the Mazhaiyur Village at Chetpet Taluk, in Thiruvannamalai District, where they stayed in a friend's house through the night and during the night, the petitioner/accused tried to hug her, but, she refused. The next day, when they went to Chetpet town, there at the bus stop, the victim/child was rescued by the Police. 3.The discharge application was filed on the ground that even taking the allegations on face value, absolutely neither the offence under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 nor the offence under Sections 354A, 354D, and 366 of IPC., is made out. The learned Counsel also submitted that now, the girl has crossed the age of 18 years and that she is also willing to live with that boy. The victim girl was also present before this Court on 20.07.2022, and submitted that even though she voluntarily went along with the petitioner being in a love affair with him, currently, she does not want to get married to the petitioner. And further, she expressed that she wants to have two years time to decide for herself as to what she wants to do. And further, she expressed that she wants to have two years time to decide for herself as to what she wants to do. In that view, the matter was again posted for arguments on the merits of the case. Thereafter, the learned Counsel also argued the matter. 4. Ms.A.Veeramarthini, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be very clear that even taking the victim statement, she accepted the love affair proposal of the petitioner and went away with him voluntarily. Further, she would submit that once the love proposal is accepted by the girl, both of them were having contact and P.W.1/mother of the victim girl even stopped the victim girl from going to work, then the offences under Sections 354 A & 354D of IPC, are not made out. Similarly, when the girl has left along with the petitioner on her own volition, then the offence under Section 366 of IPC, is also not made out. Absolutely, there are no sexual acts, which were spoken by the victim girl. Therefore, the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act is not made out. She would further submit that even taking the statements of the victim and other witnesses on record on the face value, still, the offences are not made out. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for discharge. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent would submit that in this case, in any event, the victim was less than 18 years of age. Therefore, the offence under Section 366 of IPC., is made out and the sexual intent is to be presumed against the petitioner and therefore, even the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act is also made out. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner herein. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of either side and perused the material records of this case. 7. At the outset, in the offence of this nature, even though the victim girl had appeared before this Court and made a statement that there was no wrong committed by the petitioner/accused, the same cannot be taken as such by this Court at this stage and this revision is against the dismissal of the discharge. 7. At the outset, in the offence of this nature, even though the victim girl had appeared before this Court and made a statement that there was no wrong committed by the petitioner/accused, the same cannot be taken as such by this Court at this stage and this revision is against the dismissal of the discharge. This Court is guided only by the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368 ). Therefore, this Court has to see on the basis of materials whether there is a strong suspicion against the petitioner/accused, to have committed the offences or not. In this regard, it may be seen from the statement of the victim girl itself, that after a while she also reciprocated to the proposal of the petitioner and was in a love affair with the petitioner/accused. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel, the offences under Sections 354 A & D are not made out on the face of it. 8. As far as the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) in this case, for the offence under Section 366 of IPC., is concerned, it is seen in the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in S.Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras( AIR 1965 SC 942 ), has held that the mere removal of the minor from the custody of the mother by itself, automatically the offence under Section 366 of IPC and in the absence of any other false promise, or pressures or threat, when the minor has walked out with the petitioner/accused on her own, the offence under Section 366 is not made out. It is useful to quote the relevant portion of the said Judgment of the Apex Court, which reads as follows:- “9. It must, however, be borne in mind that there is a distinction between taking and allowing a minor to accompany a person. The two expressions are not synonymous though we would like to guard ourselves from laying down that in no conceivable circumstances can the two be regarged as meaning the same thing for the purposes of Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. The two expressions are not synonymous though we would like to guard ourselves from laying down that in no conceivable circumstances can the two be regarged as meaning the same thing for the purposes of Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. We would limit ourselves to a case like the present where the minor alleged to have been taken by the accused person left her father's protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what he was doing voluntarily joins the accused person. In such a case we do not think that the accused can be said to have taken her away from the keeping of her lawful guardian. Something more has to be shown in a case of this kind and thai is some kind of inducement held out by the accused person or an Active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house of the guardian.” 9. In that view of the matter, when there is no allegation of any sexual assault or molestation made by the victim and any of the ingredients as per Section 9 of the POCSO Act, is not also made out from the evidence on record, therefore, no offence punishable under Section 10 is also made out. Therefore, I am of the view that in this case, there is no material at all on record to even strongly suspect any offence being committed by the petitioner/accused and therefore, the order of the Trial Court, rejecting the discharge application requires interference. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The order of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, dated 22.03.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.1231 of 2021 in Spl.No.110 of 2020, is set aside. The petition filed for discharge by the petitioner in Crl.MP.No.1231 of 2021 in Spl.No.110 of 2020, on the file the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, stands allowed and the petitioner is discharged from the case. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.