Madras High Court
V.Vasanth @ Vasanthakumar vs State Rep.By on 4 January, 2023
Crl.O.P..No.32665 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
Crl.O.P.No.32665 of 2022 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.20162 & 20163 of 2022
V.Vasanth @ Vasanthakumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
W-7, All Women Police Station,
Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040.
2.Mr.R.Chandrasekar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
to call for the records in C.C.No.19 of 2022 on the file of the Addl.Mahila
Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same as
against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr. M.Digvijayapandian
For Respondents : Mr.S.Santhosh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in
C.C.No.19 of 2022, on the file of the Addl.Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate's
Court, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same as against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P..No.32665 of 2022
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaint in this
case was given before the Inspector of Police, K3 Police Station, All Women
Police Station, Anna Nagar, Chennai. His further submission is that this being
a case registered under Sections 354 C, 506 (i) IPC and Sections 67, 67A &
67C of Information Technology Act, 2000, only law and order police can
register the complaint and not All Women Police Station.
3.The next submission is that electronic documents had not been
supported by the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. In
support of his submission that because of faulty registration of FIR and non
production of the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act,
prosecution cannot be maintained, he produced the following judgments (1)
State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 AIR
604 and (2) Preeti Gupta & Another Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another
reported in 2010 4 Crimes (SC) 19 for the proposition that every High Court
has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice,
for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the
process of the Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P..No.32665 of 2022
4.In response, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted
that All Women Police Station comes under the jurisdiction of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police. It can register all the crimes committed against
women. The offences in this case has been committed not only against the
defacto complainant, but primarily against his wife. Therefore, All Women
Police Station has jurisdiction to register this complaint, investigate and file a
final report and accordingly, final report was filed. It is also his submission
that the certificate under Section 65B was obtained to produced before the
Court. If at all any objections in Section 65 B certificate that can be raised
before the trial Court.
5.Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
6.FIR in this case in Crime No.11 of 2021 was registered for the
offences under Sections 354 C, 506 (i) IPC and Sections 67, 67A & 67C of
Information Technology Act, 2000, by All Women Police Station, Anna Nagar.
The allegations made in the FIR in brief are that, defacto complainant's wife is
Mahalakshmi. They have a daughter aged about 4 years and son aged about
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P..No.32665 of 2022
1 ½ years. Defacto complainant is working as a Camera man in a private
television network. In connection with his work, he use to visit Mumbai
frequently. Six months prior to the registration of the FIR, the accused
Vasanth had misbehaved with his wife by cheating her. On 06.08.2021, the
said Vasanth sent pictures showing him and defacto complainant's wife in a
compromising position and voice messages through cell phone number
8667063014. By sending these pictures and messages, he created problem in
their family life. He threatened that he would upload the photographs
showing himself and the defacto complainant's wife in social media platform
and spoil the defacto complainant's family reputation. Therefore complaint
was given.
7.After the investigation, respondent police filed a final report against
the petitioner for the offences under Sections 354 C, 506 (i) IPC and Sections
67, 67A & 67C of Information Technology Act, 2000. During the course of
investigation, the respondent police examined 11 witnesses and collected
materials in support of the case of prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P..No.32665 of 2022
8.It is further seen from the statement of the defacto complainant
recorded under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. that he had reiterated the allegations
made in the complaint and reaffirmed that the petitioner had threatened the
him that he will upload the photographs showing him and the defacto
complainant's wife in the social media network. The statement of defacto
complainant's wife Mahalakshmi also shows that the petitioner had
brainwashed her and had sexual relationship with her. Without her
knowledge, petitioner had videographed their intimate relationship. Further,
he demanded her to submit to his desire, else, he threatened her that he will
publish the photographs in the social media network. The statement of the
defacto complainant and his wife Mahalakshmi are enough to frame charges
against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 354 C, 506 (i) IPC and
Sections 67, 67A & 67C of Information Technology Act, 2000.
9.When All Women Police Station has jurisdiction to register all the
crimes committed against women, investigate and file final report, this Court
finds no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
All Women Police Station is incompetent to register, investigate and file final
report in this case. Similarly, when the learned Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P..No.32665 of 2022
(Crl.Side) submitted that Section 65 B certificate has been filed along with the
final report, this Court finds that the objection raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner in this regard cannot be sustained.
10.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the telephone
conversation between the petitioner and the wife of defacto complainant is not
collected by the Investigation Officer. If that be the case, if the petitioner is in
possession of the telephone conversation, it is open to the petitioner to produce
the same before the Trial Court to substantiate his case.
11.In fine, this Court finds that the petition filed for quashing
C.C.No.19 of 2022, on the file of the Addl.Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate's
Court, Egmore, Chennai, has no merits and therefore, this criminal original
petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
04.01.2023
sli
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P..No.32665 of 2022
To:
1.The Addl.Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate's Court,
Egmore, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
W-7, All Women Police Station,
Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P..No.32665 of 2022
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
sli
Crl.O.P. No.32665 of 2022
04.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
