Madras High Court
Murugesan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 December, 2023
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.7057 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.7057 of 2022
and CRL.M.P.No.4008 of 2022
Murugesan ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Ariyalur,
Ariyalur District.
(Crime No.36 of 2021)
2.Rayappan ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to quash the Final Report filed in Spl.S.C.No.66 of 2021
on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mani
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
For R2 : No Appearance
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.66 of 2021 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila
Court, Ariyalur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first
respondent. Though notice has been served on the second respondent,
none appeared on behalf of the second respondent either in person or
through pleader.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent
lodged a complaint alleging that when the victim girl was grassing her
cattle, the petitioner pulled her hand and asked her to marry him. Hence,
the complaint.
4. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered
FIR in Crime No.36 of 2021 for the offences under Section 8 of POCSO
Act and under Section 506(i) of IPC.
5. A perusal of the statement recorded from the second
respondent and other witnesses reveals that when the victim was grassing
her cattle, she was compelled to marry the petitioner. Except the said
allegation, no other allegations to attract the offence under Section 8 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
POCSO Act is made out. It is relevant to extract the provision under
Section 7 of the POCSO Act.
“Section 7 of the POCSO Act defines the ambit
of sexual abuse against children. It states that
“whoever, with sexual intent, touches the vagina, penis,
anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the
vagina, penis, anus or breast of such persons or any
other persons, or does any other act with sexual intent
which involves physical contact without penetration is
said to commit sexual assault”.
6. Section 8 of the POCSO Act is a commitment of sexual
assault. Even according to the case of the prosecution, there is no
allegation for sexual assault as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO
Act. That apart, on perusal of the statement recorded under Section 161
of Cr.P.C from the victim revealed the same. Therefore, the entire
proceedings cannot be sustained as against the petitioner. That apart, in
order to attract the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC, even according to
the case of the prosecution, the petitioner never threatened the victim at
any point of time.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Insofar as the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C is
concerned, to attract the offence, threat and intention to cause an alarm
are main ingredients. The third ingredient is that the intention must be to
cause any person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to
omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, subsequent
to the main ingredients. Whereas in the case on hand, even according to
the case of the prosecution, the alleged threats issued by the petitioner
were only empty threats and they had no effect on the complainant.
8. In this regard, It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of this
Court made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014 in the case of 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
9. In view of the above, the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.66 of
2021 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur, is hereby
quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.12.2023
Lpp
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Lpp
To
1.The Fast Track Mahila Court,
Ariyalur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Ariyalur,
Ariyalur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
and
01.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
