Madras High Court
M.R.Sivaramakrishnan vs State Rep. By Sub Inspector Of ... on 28 October, 2022
Crl.O.P No.18261 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.O.P No.18261 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P Nos.10016 & 10017 of 2021
M.R.Sivaramakrishnan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police
G3 Kilpauk Police Station
Kilpauk,
Chennai-600 010.
2.Thilagavathy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, praying to quash the final report filed in C.C No.159 of
2017 pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional
Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajendrakumar
For M/s.Norton and Grant
For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
Mrs.R.Vaigai for R2
For Mr.A.Arun
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.18261 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, seeking to call for the
records pertaining to C.C No.159 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai and
quash the proceedings.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 30.04.2016, at about 8.15
p.m, the de-facto complainant reached her house; at 9.00 p.m, her mother
and sister came home; the accused, who is residing in the adjacent house
came out and parked his bike in such a manner that it would block the exit
from the de-facto complainant's house; when the de-facto complainant and
her sister came out of the house and tried to find a way, the accused came
and started abusing them for having touched his bike; he abused the de-
facto complainant in a filthy language and threatened that she should not
proceed with the pending civil case filed by her; the driver of the de-facto
complainant's sister who heard the noise came for their rescue and he was
also threatened by the petitioner; the occurrence was recorded in the i-pad
and the recordings were also submitted along with the complaint; on the
above said complaint, the case was registered in Crime No.465 of 2016 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.18261 of 2021
Kilpauk Police Station for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323,
506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of
Woman Act, 2002.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and also the learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de-facto
complainant and the petitioner are close relatives and they shared a common
pathway and about which, there is already a civil suit pending. He further
submitted that in order to make out an offence punishable under Section 4
of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002, the
occurrence ought to have taken place in a public place and as per the
materials available on record, it is seen that the occurrence had taken place
not in a public place, but inside the house. The attention of this Court was
drawn to the judgment of this Court held in Anbazhagan v. State
represented by Inspector of Police, Pallikaranai Police Station,
Kancheepuram District [CDJ 2012 MHC 2168]. In the said judgment, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.18261 of 2021
is held as follows:
"7. To attract offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 offence must have
taken place at a place particularly covered by Section. A private
dwelling house is not one of such places Section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act,1998 reads as follows:
"4. Penalty of (harassment of woman) - whoever commits or
participates in or abets (harassment of woman) in or within the
precincts of any educational institution, temple or other place of
worship, bus stop, road, railway station, cinema theatre, park,
beach, place of festival, public service vehicle or vessel or any
other place shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than
thousand rupees".
This Court by its order dated 25.10.2010 in Crl.O.P
No.13501 of 2010 in Gouresh Mehra v. The State Rep. by Tr has
held as follows:
"This Court is of the considered opinion that the words "any
other place" found in Section 4 are to be read "ejusdem generis".
The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998
when originally enacted consisted of 10 Sections and came into
force on 30.07.1998. The offence under Section 4-A Harassment
death, 4-B been included under subsequent amendments of the year
2002. Confining ourselves to the offence contemplated under
Section 4 and looking into the objects and reasons of the enactment
not towards informing ourselves of the amplitude of the Act but
towards understanding the idea behind it, we find that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.18261 of 2021
enactment was intended as a measure to eradicate eve teasing in
public places. The Act informs what would constitute harassment in
general terms in Section 3 and while prescribing a penalty for
harassment under Section 4 restricts the same to harassment
committed at particular places. Proceeding further, we find, that
under Section 5 and 6, responsibilities are cast upon persons in
charge of educational institutions, temple or other places of
worship, cinema theatre or any other precinct and upon the crew of
a public service vehicle or vessel. This Court considers it
reasonable to hold that Section 4 of the Act was meant to deal with
offences occurring in the places informed or in places of like
nature. If not so read, the mention of the particular places in
Section 4 would be rendered redundant and such could not have
been the legislative intent. To put it differently, if the intent was to
attract punishment for harassment at any and every place, Section 4
simply could have read as follows:
“4. Penalty of harassment of woman - whoever commits or
participates in or abets harassment of woman in nay place shall be
punished......
7.in Kochuni Vs. State of Madras and Kerala, AIR 1960 SC
1080, it has been explained that the rule of ' ejusdem generis ' was
that when general words follow particular and specific words of the
same nature, the general words must be confined to the things of
the same kind as those specified. It was further observed that it is
clearly laid down by decided cases that the specific words must
form a distinct genus or category. It is not an inviolable rule or law,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.18261 of 2021
but it is only permissible inference in the absence of an indication
to the contrary. In Lila Vati Bai V. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC
521, it is informed that the rule of ' ejusdem generis ' is intended to
be applied where general words have been used following
particular and specific words of the same nature on the established
rule of construction that the legislature presumed to use the general
words in a restricted sense; that is to say, as belonging to the same
genus as the particular and specific words. Such a restricted
meaning has to be given to words of general import only where the
context of the whole scheme of legislation requires it. But where the
context and the object and mischief of the enactment do not require
such restricted meaning to be attached to words of general import,
it becomes necessary to give a plain and ordinary meaning.”
5. By citing the above judgment, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that Section of 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Woman Act, would come to the rescue only if a woman is
harassed in public places like educational institution, temple or other places
of worship, bus stop, road, railway station, cinema theatre, park, beach,
place of festival, public service vehicle or vessel or any other place. In
support of his above contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held in Kochuni v. State of Madras and Kerala [AIR
1960 SC 1080]. It is further submitted that in order to understand the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.18261 of 2021
meaning of 'any other place' the rule of 'ejusdem generis' should be followed
and it should be understood in the context of the set of preceding words.
6. However, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted
that the object of the Special Act is to prevent harassment and it does not
make a difference where the offence had taken place. In support of her
above contention, the judgment of this Court held in Basheer Ahamed and
others v. State, rep. by The Inspector of Police, W13, All Women Police
Station, Washermenpet Circle, Chennai-21 [2006 (4) CTC 374]. was
cited. In the said judgment, it is held as under:
6. Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of
Women Act, 1998 would read as follows:
4. Penalty for (harassment of woman). - Whoever commits
or participate in or abets (harassment of woman) in or within the
precincts of any educational institution, temple or other place of
worship, bus stop, road, railway station, cinema theatre, park,
beach, place of festival, public service vehicle or vessel or any
other place shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less
than ten thousand rupees.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the phrase
"or any other place" found in Section 4 of the Act, would submit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.18261 of 2021
that the said phrase will have to be read in consonance with the
places mentioned in the foregoing phrases in the Section. He also
referred to the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Kempaiah, 1998
Crl.L.J. 4070, wherein it has been eld that the phrase "or in any
other manner" found in the definition of Section 2 (1) of Karnataka
Lokayukta Act (1984) should be read to mean the same kind of
things as thus specific in the very same Section.
8. But, in this case, it is found that Section 3 of the Tamil
Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 specifically
prohibits the harassment of woman at any place. The Preamble
would also read that the harassment of woman in any place in the
State of Tamil Nadu is prohibited. When there is no specific
punishment contemplated for the violation of Section 3 of the Tamil
Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act,1998, the said
Section will have to be read along with Section 4 of the said Act
which is the compendious Penal Provision. A conjoint reading of
Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act would give the meaning that "at
any place" means wherever the occurrence had taken place. If
separate punishment has been contemplated for the offence under
Section 3 of the said Act, then as rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, " any other place" found in Section 4
would mean one of the places as adumbrated therein. But here, if
we read conjointly both the aforesaid Sections, it will cover the
occurrence wherever it takes place.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.18261 of 2021
7. It is reliably learnt that the charges have already been framed in
this case even before this petition was filed and the trial has commenced. A
few witnesses have also been examined on the side of the prosecution.
Except the above technical interpretation given to Section 4 of the Tamil
Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, there is no argument
advanced on the side of the petitioner with regard to the other allegations
made by the 2nd respondent and the charges laid against the petitioner.
Even for the sake of argument, if it is understood that in order to punish the
accused for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, the occurrence ought to have occurred in a
public place, still the harassment of a woman is an offence and the accused
can be punished under Section 354 IPC. Because, the Court is not precluded
to punish the accused for any other lesser offence, if the offence is
cognizable in nature.
8. Even according to the statement of the 2nd respondent, the
occurrence had taken place at a common pathway and not inside the house
of either the petitioner or the de-facto complainant. Only if the witnesses
are examined and the accused is put to trial, the exact location in which the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.18261 of 2021
occurrence had taken place can come to light. Since there are sufficient
materials available on record to charge the accused for the offences under
Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and the charges have also
been framed, I feel this is not an appropriate stage where the records should
be called for and the proceedings should be quashed. The petitioner is at
liberty to raise the points now submitted by him as his defence during the
trial.
9. In view of the above stated reasons, this Criminal Original Petition
stands dismissed. Taking into consideration of the long pendency of the
matter, I feel it is appropriate to impress upon the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai, to complete the
trial and dispose the case in C.C No.159 of 2017, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
28.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
uma
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.18261 of 2021
To
1. The Metropolitan Magistrate,
Additional Mahila Court,
Egmore, Chennai.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police
G3 Kilpauk Police Station
Kilpauk,
Chennai-600 010.
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.18261 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA, J.,
uma
Crl.O.P No.18261 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P Nos.10016 & 10017 of 2021
28.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
