Madras High Court
Kannan vs Mahalakshmi on 10 October, 2022
Crl.RC.No.140 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.RC.No.140 of 2018 and
Crl.MP.No.1025 of 2018
Kannan ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Mahalakshmi
2.The State by the Sub Inspector of Police,
Shevapet Police Station,
Salem Corporation, Salem
(crime No.741 of 2012) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order of remand dated
08.08.2017 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Salem in CA.No.6 of 2017 and restore the order of acquittal recorded on
03.12.2016 by the learned Additional Mahila Court, Salem in CC.No.15 of
2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.A.Ravindran
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.S.Sathyaraj
For R2 : Mr.A.Gopinath,
Government Advocate(crl.side)
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.140 of 2018
ORDER
This criminal revision has been filed against the order of
remand dated 08.08.2017 passed by the learned II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Salem in CA.No.6 of 2017 and thereby set aside the order
of acquittal passed on 03.12.2016 by the learned Additional Mahila Court,
Salem in CC.No.15 of 2013.
2. The petitioner is an accused in crime No.741 of 2012 registered
for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 4 of
Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The crux of the
complaint is that on 11.08.2012 at about 07.00 p.m., when the victim was
proceeding to a temple near Praba Theatre, the respondent herein abused her
in filthy languages and also caught hold her and when the victim questioned
the act of the accused, he asked her to come alone for his sexual needs and
threatened her with dire consequences. Immediately, she shouted and the
general public rescued the victim from the accused. The respondent after
completion of investigation filed final report for the offences under Sections
294(b), 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment
of Women Act. However, the trial court framed charges for the offences
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.140 of 2018
under Sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC alone. The prosecution examined PW1
to PW4 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. On the side of the petitioner, no one
was examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of oral and
documentary evidence, the trial court found the petitioner not guilty and
acquitted him for the offence under Sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC.
Aggrieved by the same, the victim preferred appeal and the appellate court
reversed the findings of the trial court and remanded back for the de novo
trial for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and
Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
prosecution witnesses PW2 and PW3 did not support of the case of the
prosecution. Therefore, though the trial court failed to frame charge for the
offence under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women
Act, the prosecution failed to prove the allegation to bring home the charge
for the offence under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of
Women Act. Therefore, no purpose would be served by ordering de novo
enquiry. In fact, PW2 and PW3 turned hostile and no purpose would be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.140 of 2018
served for de novo enquiry when the PW2 and PW3 turned hostile. The
remittance of the matter back to the trial court to frame additional charge for
the offence punishable under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act afresh would be futile exercise. Further, the
remittance of the matter for de novo trial at this distant point of time where
the alleged occurrence was said to have taken place in the year 2012 and the
sole eye witness failed to support the case of the prosecution, no purpose
would be served for de novo enquiry. He further submitted that conviction
cannot be set aside for the reason no charge is framed. In support of his
contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Kammari Brahmaiah and Others Vs. Public
Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. reported in (1999) 2 SCC 522.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the victim / first respondent
submitted that the trial court failed to frame charge for the offence
punishable under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of
Women Act though there are specific allegations to attract the offence under
Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.140 of 2018
Therefore, the appellate court rightly remanded the matter for de novo
enquiry since no other option than to remit the matter by the appellate court.
5. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that the
appellate court not only remanded the matter for the reason that the trial
court failed to frame charges for the offence under Section 4 of Tamilnadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, but also for the observation of
the trial court insofar as the charges under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of
IPC and remanded back for fresh trial.
6. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government
Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the second respondent.
7. The only point for consideration in this revision is that whether
the appellate court has rightly ordered for de novo enquiry after framing
charge for the offence under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act. On the complaint lodged by the victim, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.140 of 2018
respondent registered FIR in crime No.741 of 2012 for the offence under
Sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act. According to the victim, while she was working
under the petitioner in the courier office, she borrowed money. After
repayment of the part amount, the petitioner insisted the victim for his
sexual needs instead of repaying the money. It was informed to the husband
of the victim and immediately he stopped her from her employment under
the accused. While being so, on 11.08.2012 when the victim was proceeding
to a temple, the petitioner scolded her with filthy languages and also caught
hold her hands and also demanded for his sexual needs. When it was
questioned by the victim, the accused immediately shouted her in filthy
languages and also threatened her with dire consequences. After general
public intervened, she was rescued from the hands of the accused.
8. Therefore, the respondent filed final report for the offences
under Sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act as against the petitioner herein.
However, the trial court failed to frame charge for the offence under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.140 of 2018
4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The trial court
also failed to state any reason for non framing the charge for the offence
under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
Therefore, it is nothing but oversight by the trial court for non framing of
charge for the offence under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act. Hence, the appellate court rightly set aside the
order passed by the trial court and remanded back for de novo enquiry after
framing charge for the offence under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act.
9. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in
which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the provision under
Section 464 of Cr.P.C. - Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error
in, charge provides what is to be done in cases where charge is not framed
or there is an error, omission or irregularity in framing of the charge. From
the unequivocal terms of the section, it can be stated that finding, sentence
or order could be set aside only in those cases where the facts are such that
no valid charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.140 of 2018
proved. Secondly, if the facts are such that charge could be framed and yet it
is not framed but there is no failure of justice, has in fact been occasioned
thereby, the finding sentence or order of the court of competent jurisdiction
is not to be set aside on that ground.
10. Here in the case on hand, the trial court acquitted the petitioner
and without even framing the charge for the offence under Section 4 of
Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Therefore, the above
judgment is not helpful to the case on hand.
11. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality
in the judgment passed by the appellate court. Accordingly, this criminal
revision is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
10.10.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.140 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.140 of 2018
lok
To
1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Salem
2.The learned Additional Mahila Court,
Salem
Crl.RC.No.140 of 2018
10.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
