L.G.Sarath Inigo vs State Through
2023 Latest Caselaw 10567 Mad

                                                                          Crl.O.P(MD).No.12966 of 2019

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   Dated : 17.08.2023

                                                            CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
                                              Crl.O.P(MD).No.12966 of 2019
                                                          and
                                          Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.7972 and 7973 of 2019


                 L.G.Sarath Inigo                                              ...Petitioner

                                                       Vs

                 1.State through
                   The Inspector of Police,
                   Perumalpuram Police Station,
                   Tirunelveli City
                   (In Crime No.331 of 2018)
                 2.Karthika                                                    ...Respondents

                 PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
                 Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to call for the records in C.C.No.642
                 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli and
                 quash the same.
                                  For Petitioner              : Mr.Veera Associates,
                                                                For Mr.S.Ramsundar Vijayraj
                                  For 1st Respondent          : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
                                                                Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
                                  For 2nd Respondent          : Mr.M.Saravana Kannan

                                                            ORDER

This petition is filed to quash charge sheet passed in C.C.No.642 of 2019

on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.12966 of 2019

2.According to the petitioner, the second respondent had lodged a false

complaint against the petitioner before the first respondent and the first

respondent registered a case in Crime No.331 of 2018 and thereafter, filed

final report for the offence under Sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and Section 4

of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 67 of

Information Technology Act and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.642 of

2019.

3.As per prosecution case, on 30.10.2018, while the second respondent

was having telephonic conversion, the petitioner approached her and

introduced himself as an advocate and told her that he knew the second

respondent for 1½ years and the petitioner continued to speak to the second

respondent through cell phone and even though the second respondent did not

like the petitioner, the petitioner kept on talking to her. On 22.11.2018, the

petitioner abused her in filthy language and on 08.12.2018 at about 06.30p.m.,

when the second respondent along with the family members near a park, the

petitioner came there in his car and got down and abused in filthy language

and when the father and brother-in-law of the second respondent came there,

the petitioner left the place of occurrence and also criminally intimidated the

second respondent. In fact no such offence has happened as alleged in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.12966 of 2019

complaint and the final report. In fact an estranged love affair between the

petitioner and the second respondent. The second respondent has been

maliciously given a criminal color at the instigation of the second respondent's

father, who is not practicing advocate. The second respondent suppressed the

real fact that she had often visited the petitioner in his office and spent more

time with the petitioner and his parents. The date of alleged occurrence is

08.12.2018. But the complaint was given on 11.12.2018. The allegations are

vague and will not constitute any offence. But the first respondent without

conducting the proper investigation filed final report. Hence the charge sheet

is liable to be quashed.

4.No counter was filed by the respondents.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the

second respondent gave a complaint against the petitioner before the first

respondent. The first respondent registered a case in Crime No.331 of 2018

and thereafter, without conducting proper investigation, the first respondent

filed final report and the same is taken on file as C.C.No.642 of 2019. In fact,

the petitioner and the second respondent loved each other and due to the

instigation of father of the second respondent, this false complaint has been

lodged by the defacto complainant. Even according to the allegations of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.12966 of 2019

complaint, no offence is made out and the allegations as against the petitioner

are vague allegations and therefore, the registration of FIR itself is abuse of

process of law and further the first respondent without conducting proper

investigation mechanically filed final report. Hence, the charge sheet is liable

to be set aside.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and the

learned Government Advocate have contended that the petitioner abused the

obscene words and threatened the defacto complainant and thereby, she gave a

complaint before the first respondent and FIR in Crime No.331 of 2018

registered and thereafter, the first respondent investigated the case and filed

final report. As per investigation and final report, prima facie materials

available to proceed with the case and thereby, the learned Magistrate had

taken the case on file in C.C.No.642 of 2019 and the case is pending for

further adjudication. At this stage there is no valid ground to quash the C.C.

Proceedings. The grounds raised by the petitioner are defence and the same

can be raised before the trial Court and this is matter of trial and at this stage,

this petition is not maintainable and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.12966 of 2019

8.According to the petitioner, the second respondent at the instigation

of her father gave a complaint before the first respondent and the first

respondent police also registered FIR and without conducting proper

investigation, filed final report. According to the second respondent, the

petitioner has tortured the second respondent and abused obscene words and

criminally intimidated over phone and in person, the petitioner continuously

tortured the defacto complainant and thereby, she gave a complaint. The

grounds raised by the petitioner is that the Investigating Officer has not done a

fair investigation and the second respondent maliciously gave criminal

complaint and the allegations made in the FIR are vague allegations.

9.This Court has perused the entire records and as per final report, there

are prima facie materials available to proceed the case as against the petitioner

and after elaborate investigation only, the police have filed final report. At this

stage, this Court cannot test the veracity of the statement of witnesses and the

documents collected during investigation. Further it is for the learned

Magistrate to decide as to whether any offences are made out as against the

petitioner at the time of framing charges. It is admitted fact that so far charges

have not been framed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, if no prima facie

materials available to constitute particular offence, the petitioner can very well

approach the Magistrate Court by filing discharge petition. There are no https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.12966 of 2019

sufficient grounds to quash the C.C. Proceedings and thereby, this Court is of

the opinion that this petition has no merits and liable to be dismissed.

10.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the

offence under Section 67 of Information Technology Act would not attract and

no averments in the FIR to constitute the offence under Section 67 of

Information Technology Act. To support his contention, he relied in judgment

in Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2017)

2 Supreme Court Cases 18, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with

the overriding effect of Information Technology Act and once the Court holds

that no materials to invoke Section 67 of Information Technology Act, there

cannot proceed to case under Section 292 of IPC. However, in the case on

hand, no such question arise. Hence, the said judgment will not applicable to

the present facts of the case.

11.Since the case is at the stage of framing the charges, it is for the

Magistrate to decide what kind of offences are made out at stage. This Court

cannot quash the charge sheet filed by the first respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.12966 of 2019

12.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are closed.

17.08.2023 NCC : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Mrn

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.

2.The Inspector of Police, Perumalpuram Police Station, Tirunelveli City.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.12966 of 2019

P. DHANABAL,J.

Mrn

Crl.O.P(MD).No.12966 of 2019

17.08.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis