Madras High Court
S.A.A.Amalorpavarani vs The Inspector Of Police on 22 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20039 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.20039 of 2021
&
Crl.M.P(MD)No.11291 of 2021
S.A.A.Amalorpavarani ... Petitioner/
Sole Accused
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
Thirugokarnam Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
(Crime No.749 of 2021) ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2. Gunaseeli ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records and quash the FIR filed as against the Petitioner in Crime No.749 of
2021 dated 20.11.2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police,Thirugokarnam
Police Station, Pudukkottai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
for R.1
Mr.J.Vishnu for R.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20039 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR filed as
against the Petitioner in Crime No.749 of 2021 dated 20.11.2021 on the file of
the Inspector of Police, Thirugokarnam Police Station, Pudukkottai District.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is a member of
Juvenile Justice Board, Pudukottai, went to the residence of defacto
complainant on 14.11.2021, at about 3.30 p.m and had threatened the defacto
complainant for not selecting her for the personal interview to be held on
16.11.2021 for the post of Child Welfare Committee Member stating that her
brother is an Advocate and she cannot live peacefully having invited enmity
with her. Further, the petitioner had threatened stating that the defacto
complainant also has a daughter and she would see how they could live
peacefully. Subsequently, the complaint came to be given on 20.11.2021 at
04.00 p.m and the FIR was registered for the alleged offences under Sections
294(b) and 506(i) IPC. Therefore, there is absolutely no material to attract the
offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C. as against the petitioner. In this
regard, it is relevant to extract the judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.
11030 of 2014 (Abdul Agis Vs. State through the Inspector of Police), which
reads as follows:-
“7.It is seen from the statements recorded under Section
161(3) of Cr.P.C. of the second respondent/ defacto complainant that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20039 of 2021
it does not contain any obscene words, which were uttered by the
petitioner herein and the entire allegations are very simple in
nature. It is also seen from the statement of one Uthami, that the
petitioner threatened the defacto complainant with dire
consequences when he dashed the defacto complainant. The entire
allegations are trivial in nature. Further, to attract the offence
under Section 506(i) of I.P.C., there was a threatening only by
words. As pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word
when the petition uttering does not exactly mean what he says and
also when the person to whom threat is launched does not feel
threatened actually. Therefore, the offences under Sections 294(B)
and 506(i) of I.P.C. are not made out as against the petitioner herein
and also the entire criminal proceedings is clear an abuse of process
of Court. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the entire
proceedings.”
3. The above judgment is squarely applicable in the case on hand. As
such, the present complaint is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and it
cannot be sustained as against the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Original
Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
mga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20039 of 2021
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is
the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Thirugokarnam Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20039 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mga
Crl.O.P(MD)No.20039 of 2021
&
Crl.M.P(MD)No.11291 of 2021
22.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
