Madras High Court
G. Parthasarathy vs The State Rep. By Its on 5 June, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.32870 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.No.32870 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.18131 & 18133 of 2019
G. Parthasarathy ... Petitioner / Accused
-Vs-
1. The State Rep. by its
Inspector of Police (L & O)
P-6, Kodungaiyur Police Station,
Kodungaiyur,
Chennai – 600 118. ... 1st Respondent / Complainant
2.S. Chithra ... 2nd Respondent / De-facto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the Charge Sheet
in C.C.No.45 of 2019 pending on the file of the Additional Mahila
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr. R.C. Paul Kanagaraj
For R1 : Mr. A. Damodaran,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
Crl.O.P.No.32870 of 2019
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : No appearance
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.45 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Mahila
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, filed for the offence
under Sections 354, 294(b), 506(i) and 509 IPC and Section 4 of
TNPWH Act.
2.It is alleged in the final report that the defacto complainant and
the petitioner are neighbours; that the petitioner had recorded the picture
of the defacto complainant in his mobile phone; that on 24.03.2018 at
about 10.00 p.m., when the defacto complainant and her relative were
talking with each other, the petitioner had abused the defacto
complainant in filthy language and outraged her modesty by pulling her
thuppatta; that he had further threatened the defacto complainant that if
she or her husband gave a complaint against the petitioner, he would take
severe action and they would face dire consequence. Hence, the final
report has been filed for the above said offences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.32870 of 2019
3(a).Mr. R. C. Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner
would mainly base his submissions on the ground that the complaint
given by the defacto complainant and the consequential final report is an
abuse of process of law and is a malafide action. The defacto
complainant's husband had prior enmity as against the petitioner, since
the petitioner had given several complaints stating about the illegal
activities of the defacto complainant's husband in using his terrace
portion of the house for gambling and also for allowing the drainage
water into the common road. The petitioner's wife had earlier given
complaints against the defacto complainant's husband on 26.07.2017 and
05.09.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner's wife had filed C.M.P.No.3861 of
2017 before the learned Additional Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, for a direction to the respondent police to investigate her
complaint and file a final report. Since, no action was taken on the said
complaint, the petitioner's wife filed a complaint under Section 21 read
with Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859 praying for
the action against the then Inspector of Police one Pugazhendi, who had
not taken any action.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.32870 of 2019
3(b).The learned counsel therefore submitted that aggrieved by
the action taken by the petitioner's wife, the said Inspector of Police had
instigated the de-facto complainant to give a false complaint against the
petitioner. He had also arrested the petitioner and sought for remand
before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. However, the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate refused remand stating that the arrest was not in
accordance with the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh
Kumar Vs. State of Bihar.
3(c).Thereafter, the petitioner had given several complaints against
the defacto complainant and her husband. While so, the defacto
complainant had also made a false complaint against the petitioner,
stating that the petitioner had committed offences under POCSO Act
against her daughters. The petitioner was arrested in the said complaint
and even in that case, remand was refused by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate. Thereafter, the All Women Police Station filed a final report
against the petitioner in Spl. S.C.No.198 of 2021. The petitioner filed a
discharge petition before the Special Court and the Special Court after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.32870 of 2019
considering the materials available on record and the submissions of the
petitioner held that the prosecution had prima facie failed to establish the
case as even there was no grave suspicion against the petitioner accused
and hence, discharged the petitioner.
3(d).The learned counsel submitted that therefore the petitioner
had also made a complaint before the Human Rights Commission against
the acts of the said Inspector of Police and the Human Rights
Commission held that action of the said Inspector in registering the case
against the petitioner was malafide and directed action against the said
Inspector. The Human Rights Commissioner further held that the
petitioner was entitled for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there
are allegations in the impugned final report and the points raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner has to be adjudicated only before the
Trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.32870 of 2019
5.Though notice was served on the 2nd respondent and the learned
counsel had entered appearance, there is no representation for the 2 nd
respondent on 12.04.2023 and 25.04.2023. Even today when the matter
was called under the caption 'for orders' there is no representation for the
2nd respondent.
6.This Court finds that, there is a substantial force in the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
petitioner, who is a practicing advocate, had given a complaint against
the defacto complainant's husband and it appears that the defacto's
complainant husband was inimical towards the petitioner. The
petitioner's wife had given a complaint against the defacto complainant's
husband, for which no action was taken by the police. The petitioner's
wife had filed a complaint against the said Inspector praying for action
under Section 21 read with Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu District Police
Act, 1859. It appears that, aggrieved by the said action against him, the
Inspector of Police had registered the FIR after obtaining the complaint
from the defacto complainant. The Human Rights Commission in the
order dated 17.12.2021 had held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.32870 of 2019
“39. Considering the materials on record, this
Commission is of the considered opinion that the
respondents instigated the said defacto complainant Chithra
and obtained complaint and registered criminal case against
the complainant and immediately arrested him. .....”
7.That apart this Court finds that the defacto complainant is in the
habit of giving false complaints against the petitioner. She had also filed
a complaint under the POCSO Act, against the petitioner, in which her
daughters were shown as victims. The Special Court found that there
were no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner in the
said case.
8.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the view that the
continuation of the prosecution would be clearly an abuse of process of
Court. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineet Kumar
and others Vs. State of U.P and others reported in 2017 (3) CTC 751,
squarely applies to the facts of the case. The relevant paragraph is
extracted hereunder:
“39. Inherent power given to the High Court under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.32870 of 2019
Section 482, Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of
advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is
sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the
Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The
Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in
one of the Categories as illustratively enumerated by this
Court in State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding, which cannot be
allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or
harassment. When there was material to indicate that a
Criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive,
the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding under
Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana V. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which is to the following effect:
“(7) Where a Criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and / or where the proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the Accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the
present case. Although, the High Court has noted the
Judgment of the State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal, but did not
advert to the relevant facts of the present case, materials on
which Final Report was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.32870 of 2019
fully satisfied that the present is a fit case, where High Court
ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482,
Cr.P.C. and quashed the Criminal proceedings.
9.Therefore, this Court is of the view, for all the above reasons that
the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.45 of 2019 on the file of the
Additional Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, are liable to
be quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
05.06.2023
smv
Index : Yes/No
Speaking : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To,
1. Inspector of Police (L & O)
P-6, Kodungaiyur Police Station,
Kodungaiyur,
Chennai – 600 118.
2. The Additional Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Egmore, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.32870 of 2019
smv
Crl.O.P.No.32870 of 2019
05.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
