Madras High Court
Nanjil Sampath vs The State Through Inspector Of ... on 20 January, 2022
Crl.O.P.Nos.18261, 18292, 18475 19128 & 19181 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.11147, 11168, 11243, 11606 & 11636 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 20.01.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.Nos.18261, 18292, 18475 19128 & 19181 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.11147, 11168, 11243, 11606 & 11636 of 2017
Nanjil Sampath ... Petitioner in all Crl.O.Ps.
Vs
1. The State through Inspector of Police,
S5, Pallavaram Police Station,
Chennai.
2. K.S.Anandh ... Respondents in Crl.O.P.No.
18261/2017
1. The State through Inspector of Police,
Shankar Nagar Police Station,
Pammal, Chennai.
2. Sarathy @ Parthasarathy ... Respondents in Crl.O.P.No.
18292/2017
1. The State through Inspector of Police,
E-5 Foreshore Estate Police Station,
Chennai.
Page 1 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18261, 18292, 18475 19128 & 19181 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.11147, 11168, 11243, 11606 & 11636 of 2017
2. Loganathan ... Respondents in Crl.O.P.No.
18475/2017
1. The State through Inspector of Police,
T-2 Ambattur Estate Police Station,
Chennai.
2. M.V.Sasidaran ... Respondents in Crl.O.P.No.
19128/2017
1. The State through Inspector of Police,
J-7 Velachery Police Station,
Chennai.
2. Ganes Sownth ... Respondents in Crl.O.P.No.
19181/2017
PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.18261 of 2017: Criminal Original Petition filed under
Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the
F.I.R. in Crime No.1978 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent against the
petitioner and quash the same.
PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.18292 of 2017: Criminal Original Petition filed under
Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the
F.I.R. in Crime No.2362 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent against the
petitioner and quash the same.
PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.18475 of 2017: Criminal Original Petition filed under
Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the
F.I.R. in Crime No.550 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent against the
petitioner and quash the same.
Page 2 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18261, 18292, 18475 19128 & 19181 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.11147, 11168, 11243, 11606 & 11636 of 2017
PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.19128 of 2017: Criminal Original Petition filed under
Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the
F.I.R. in Crime No.1509 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent against the
petitioner and quash the same.
PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.19181 of 2017: Criminal Original Petition filed under
Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the
F.I.R. in Crime No.1758 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent against the
petitioner and quash the same.
For petitioners : Mr.V.Pradeep Raj – in all Crl.O.P.s.
For Respondents : Mr.R.Kishore Mumar
Government Advocate [Crl. Side] – R1 in all Crl.O.Ps.
Mr.Alexis Sudhakar – R2 in Crl.O.P.No.18261 of 2017
No appearance for R2 in Crl.O.P.No.18292 of 2017
Mr.Alexis Sudhakar – R2 in Crl.O.P.No.18475 of 2017
No appearance for R2 in Crl.O.P.No.19128 of 2017
Mr.P.Ayyaswamy – R2 in Crl.O.P.No.19181 of 2017
COMMON ORDER
These petitions have been filed to quash the First Information Reports
registered against the petitioner for the offences under sections 354 500, 509 of
IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002.
Page 3 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18261, 18292, 18475 19128 & 19181 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.11147, 11168, 11243, 11606 & 11636 of 2017
2. The First Information Reports have been lodged by the defacto
complaints who are said to be aggrieved over the alleged statements made by the
accused which caused disrespect and also harassment to the leader of a political
party Ms.Thamizisai Soundarrajan, presently Governor of Telangana. Thereby,
crime has been registered against the petitioner by the Pallavaram Police Station in
Crime No.1978 of 2017 for the offences under sections 354 and 500 of IPC read
with section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. On the
same allegations a crime was registered in Crime No. 1509 of 2017 by the
Ambattur Estate Police Station for the offences under section 504 of IPC and
Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Similarly, a
crime was registered in Crime No.2362 of 2017 by Sankarnagar Police Station for
the offences under sections 354, 500 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Similarly a Crime was registered in
Crime No.550 of 2017 by the Foreshore Estate Police Station for the offences
under section 354, 500 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act. Similarly another crime was registered in Crime
No.2522 of 2017 by the Saidapet Police Station for the offences under section 500
Page 4 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18261, 18292, 18475 19128 & 19181 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.11147, 11168, 11243, 11606 & 11636 of 2017
and 509 of IPC. Similarly another crime was registered in Crime No.1758 of 2017
by Velacherry Police Station for the offences under sections 500 of IPC and 4 of
Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. All these First Information
Reports were sought to be quashed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that
based on similar allegations multiple First Information Reports have been
registered and same is not permissible in the eye of law. It is his further contention
that the allegations found in the First Information Reports do not constitute any
offence and offences under sections 354 and 509 of IPC and Section 4 of
Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act have not been made out. It is
his further contention that even for any offence under sections Tamilnadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, the complaint ought to have been
lodged only by the aggrieved woman. Therefore, third party has no locus standi to
lodge any complaint under the Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women
Act and such complaint cannot be investigated. It is his further contention that the
police cannot investigate the complaint filed for an offence under section 500 of
IPC and the Court only can take cognizance on the complaint made by the
aggrieved person. Whereas, the leader of the so called political party has not
lodged any complaint. Therefore, all the First Information Reports have to be
Page 5 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18261, 18292, 18475 19128 & 19181 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.11147, 11168, 11243, 11606 & 11636 of 2017
quashed. He also placed reliance on the following judgments to contend that
multiple First Information Reports are not permissible in the eye of law :
1. Kartar Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab
reported in AIR 1956 Supreme Court 451
2. G.Narasimhan and others Vs. T.V.Chokkappa reported
in AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2609
3. M.P.Narayana Pillai and others Vs. M.P.Chacko and
another reported in 1986 Cri.L.J.2002 [1] Kerala High Court
4. Balasaheb Keshav Thackery Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in 2004 [SUP] BCR 158
5. O.Varadarajan and another Vs. G.K.Mani reported in
2006 Cri.L.J. 2302 Madras High Court
6. T.T.Antony Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in
[2006] 6 SCC 181
7. S.Khusbhoo Vs. Kanniammal and another reported in
[2010] 5 SCC 600
8. Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in [2013] 6 SCC 348
Page 6 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18261, 18292, 18475 19128 & 19181 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.11147, 11168, 11243, 11606 & 11636 of 2017
9. Akbaruddin Owaisi Vs. The Govt. of A.P. Rep. by its
Principal Secretary and Others reported in CDJ 2013 APHC
10. Maulik Kotak Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
2014 Cri.L.J.4235 Bombay High Court
11. Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs. Union of India and others
reported in CDJ 2020 SC 532
3. The learned counsel for the respondent and the defacto complainant
submitted that the petitioner is in the habit of making scurrilous allegations with
regard to character of the persons and is making unscrupulous allegations against
all the political leaders. The allegations in the First Information Reports will
clearly constitute an offence which has been perpetrated against women
constitutional post and the First information Reports are in the initial stage and the
statements recorded by the police authorities will bring forth many facts and these
matters requires investigation and the same cannot be quashed.
Page 7 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18261, 18292, 18475 19128 & 19181 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.11147, 11168, 11243, 11606 & 11636 of 2017
4. It is not in dispute that all the First Information Reports which are the
subject matter of these petitions, the first First Information Report was filed before
the Pallavaram Police Station on 28.08.2017 for offences under section 354, 509
and 500 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women
Act followed by other First Information Reports filed in various Police Stations.
The law is now well settled that for similar allegations there cannot be multiple
First Information Reports. Filing of multiple First Information Reports on the same
facts is beyond the purview of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Any person is aggrieved
over the statement lodges a complaint, namely subsequent complaints should be
treated as statements by the investigation officer. In such view of the matter, this
Court is of the view that, considering the well settled position of law in this regard,
the subsequent First Information Reports registered in Ambattur Estate Police
Station, Shankar Nagar Police Station, Velacherry Police Station and Saidapet
Police Station are liable to be quashed. At the most such statements would be
taken into consideration as only statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. while
investigating the first First Information Report registered before the Pallavaram
Police Station.
Page 8 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18261, 18292, 18475 19128 & 19181 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.11147, 11168, 11243, 11606 & 11636 of 2017
5. Though it is contended that the allegations do not constitute any of the
offences in the First Information Report, this Court is of the view that except
offence under section 500 of IPC for the alleged defamation, there is no bar for the
police officials to investigate further and file a final report taking note of the
various allegations which have been made against the aggrieved persons. The
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the offence committed
under section 4 of the Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act can be
lodged only by the aggrieved person cannot be countenanced for the simple reason
that the harassment defined under the above Act includes intimidation, fear, shame
or embarrassment, including abusing or causing hurt or nuisance or assault or use
of force. Therefore, any person who is aggrieved by such abuse or harassment
caused on a women folk can lodge a first information report. Therefore, if the
theory of interpretation as contended by the learned counsel is accepted, the very
object of the Act to prevent harassment of the women itself would be defeated. As
rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court only has to
take cognizance of the offence under section 500 of IPC on the basis of the
complaint by the aggrieved person. Such being the position, the police cannot
investigate the same. Further, this Court having held that multiple First
Page 9 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18261, 18292, 18475 19128 & 19181 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.11147, 11168, 11243, 11606 & 11636 of 2017
Information Reports are not permitted in the eye of law, this Court is of the view
that as the allegations are serious in nature and infact, the statements made in the
First Information Reports also touch upon the women folk, the same has to be
investigated properly. In such view of the matter, the First Information reports
which are challenged in Crl.O.P.Nos.18292, 18475, 19128 and 19181 are liable to
be quashed and the complaints given by the parties have to be treated as
statements by the investigating officer of Pallavaram Police Station, which is the
subject matter of Crl.O.P.No.18261 of 2017 filed to quash the First Information
Report registered in Crime No.2978 of 2017 and conduct investigation in this
matter and file a final report.
6. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the offence under section 354 of IPC has not been made out, offence under section
354 attracts only whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending
to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty.
Whereas no force whatsoever has been used in this case. However, the
prosecution has to proceed to investigate for the offence under section 509 and
Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and if any
Page 10 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18261, 18292, 18475 19128 & 19181 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.11147, 11168, 11243, 11606 & 11636 of 2017
offence is made out, file a final report as per law. The Inspector of Police,
Pallavaram Police Station is directed to investigate based on the First Information
Report and he can treat all the other complaints given which lead to filing of First
Information Report as statement of the witnesses. It is also made clear that if any
other First Information Reports filed in this regard, the investigating officer shall
treat the same as statements of the witnesses and investigate the matter and file a
final report.
7. With the above observations,
[i] the Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.18261 of 2017 is dismissed.
[ii] Crl.O.P.No.18292 of 2017 is allowed and the First Information
registered in Ambattur Estate Police Station in Crime No.1509 of 2017 is quashed.
[iii] Crl.O.P.No.18475 of 2017 is allowed and the First Information Report
registered in Sankarnagar Police Station in Crime No.2362 of 2017 is quashed.
[iv] Crl.O.P.No.19128 of 2017 is allowed and the First Information Report
registered in Foreshore Estate Police Station in Crime No.550 of 2017 is quashed.
[v] Crl.O.P.No.19181 of 2017 is allowed and the First Information Report
Page 11 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18261, 18292, 18475 19128 & 19181 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.11147, 11168, 11243, 11606 & 11636 of 2017
registered in Sadapet Police Station in Crime No.2522 of 2017 is quashed.
8. In the result, the Crl.O.P.No.18261 of 2017 is dismissed and other
Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. Consequently connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
20.01.2022
vrc
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Speaking Order
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
S5, Pallavaram Police Station,
Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Shankar Nagar Police Station,
Pammal, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police,
E-5 Foreshore Estate Police Station,
Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
T-2 Ambattur Estate Police Station,
Page 12 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18261, 18292, 18475 19128 & 19181 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.11147, 11168, 11243, 11606 & 11636 of 2017
Chennai.
5. The Inspector of Police,
J-7 Velachery Police Station,
Chennai.
Page 13 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18261, 18292, 18475 19128 & 19181 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.11147, 11168, 11243, 11606 & 11636 of 2017
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
Crl.O.P.Nos.18261, 18292, 18475 19128
& 19181 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.11147, 11168, 11243,
11606 & 11636 of 2017
20.01.2022
Page 14 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
