Madras High Court
Dr.M.Thiyagarajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 3 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.Nos.7478 and 7480 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.7478 and 7480 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.5430 and 5431 of 2024
Crl.O.P.No.7478 of 2024:-
Dr.M.Thiyagarajan ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police,
Tirupattur Town Police Station,
Tirupattur, Tirupattur District.
2. Archana ... Respondents
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call
for records and quash the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.27/2024 on the file of
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirupattur.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.A.Sudesh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) (for R1)
Mr.D.Jagadeesan (for R2)
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:47:04 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7478 and 7480 of 2024
Crl.O.P.No.7480 of 2024:-
Dr.M.Thiyagarajan ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Tirupattur, Tirupattur District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Tirupattur Town Police Station,
Tirupattur, Tirupattur District. ... Respondents
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call
for records pertaining to the Final Report in C.C.No.26/2024 on the file of
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirupattur, Tirupattur District and set aside the
same and consequentially direct the respondent police to Re-investigate in
Crime No.372/2023 on his file and to file Final Report.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.A.Sudesh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:47:04 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7478 and 7480 of 2024
COMMON ORDER
Crl.O.P.No.7478 of 2024 has been filed to quash the entire
proceedings in C.C.No.27 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Tirupathur.
2. Crl.O.P.No.7480 of 2024 has been filed challenging the final report
in C.C.No.26 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Tiruattur and also for re-investigation of the First Information Report in
Crime No.372 of 2023 on the file of the second respondent Police.
3. The petitioner is a doctor and he is running a clinic under the name
and style of 24x7 Poison & Emergency Care Hospital at No.8/16,
Hanumantha Ubasagarpettai, Tirupattur District. While that being so, on
12.09.2023, at about midnight 12.00 o'clock, when the petitioner was in the
clinic, the second respondent came to his clinic complaining of stomach
pain. She went to his room and the petitioner asked her to lie down on the
bed. He checked her stomach, removed her pant, and touched her private
part. When the second respondent questioned him, he misbehaved with her.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:47:04 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7478 and 7480 of 2024
Immediately, she came out of his room and informed her brother, who had
also gone to the clinic with the second respondent. They went home, and all
her relatives came to the clinic and questioned him. While questioning him
about the same incident, he scolded her with filthy language and also
attacked her. On the complaint, the first respondent registered a First
Information Report in Crime No.371 of 2023 for the offences punishable
under Sections 294(b), 323, 354, 354A, and 354B of IPC. After completing
the investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been taken
cognizance in C.C.No.27 of 2024.
4. On the very same incident, the petitioner also lodged a complaint
and the same was registered as a First Information Report in Crime No.372
of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 324,
427, and 506(1) of IPC as against five accused persons, who had
accompanied the victim girl, alleging that they attacked him and also
scolded all the staff of the clinic with filthy language. After completing the
investigation, the first respondent filed a final report and the same has been
taken cognizance in C.C.No.26 of 2024 and it is pending on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupattur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:47:04 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7478 and 7480 of 2024
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner and his wife are doctors, running 24x7 Poison & Emergency Care
Hospital at No.8/16, Hanumantha Ubasagarpettai, Tirupattur District. Due
to previous enmity and to exact vengeance, a false complaint has been
foisted to tarnish the name of the petitioner and also to shut down the clinic.
He also produced CCTV footages to show that the complainant went inside
the room of the doctor and while coming out, showed no resemblance of the
alleged misbehaviour of the petitioner. They came out of the clinic calmly,
and thereafter, she brought all her relatives and henchmen to attack the
petitioner. They brutally attacked the petitioner and the clinic.
5.1. He further submitted that the offence under Section 354 is not at
all attracted, and even then, the first respondent mechanically filed a final
report for the said offence, which has been taken cognizance of by the Trial
Court. While conducting the investigation, the first respondent ought to
have seen if there was any substance in the allegations to make out a case
for the offence under Section 354 of IPC. The ingredients set out under the
offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC are not at all made out in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:47:04 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7478 and 7480 of 2024
case on hand. There is no force and there is no mental and physical
discomfort caused to the second respondent by the petitioner. That apart, the
petitioner had no mens rea for the act as alleged by the prosecution. In
support of his contention, he relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Naresh Aneja alias Naresh Kumar Aneja vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the
respondents Police submitted that there are specific allegations as against
the petitioner and also materials to attract the offences under Sections
294(b), 323, 354, 354A, and 354B of IPC. Now, the trial Court has taken
cognizance and it is pending for trial.
7. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed on record.
8. Further, both the petitioner as well as the second respondent are
doctors. At the time of occurrence, the second respondent was doing her
house surgeon. Therefore, the second respondent has knowledge about the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:47:04 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7478 and 7480 of 2024
treatment for her complaint. The second respondent went to the petitioner's
clinic for her stomach pain, for which the doctor had no need to subject the
second respondent to checking her private part. At the most, the petitioner
could have checked her stomach by giving some pressure to feel the pain.
9. Therefore, this Court directed the second respondent to appear
before this Court and she appeared before this Court at the Judge's Chamber
on 27.02.2025 at 4.45 p.m. and deposed that she went inside the room of the
petitioner and the petitioner attempted to misbehave with her by touching
her private part, as she had complained of stomach pain. Immediately, she
refused the ill-treatment and came out from his room. She complained about
the same to her brother, who had also accompanied her to the petitioner's
clinic. They went away and brought her relatives to question the petitioner.
When the second respondent and her relatives questioned the petitioner, he
scolded them with filthy language and also attacked them. There was a push
and pull from both sides. Therefore, both sides sustained some injuries. On
her complaint, the first respondent registered the First Information Report
and also, on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, another First
Information Report has been registered against the five persons who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:47:04 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7478 and 7480 of 2024
accompanied the second respondent.
10. This Court can also visualise that, on such a complaint, what
would happen if the relatives entered into the clinic of the petitioner.
Therefore, the respondent rightly registered two First Information Reports,
completed the investigation and also filed final reports. Both the final
reports have been taken cognizance and both are pending for trial.
11. On a perusal of the statement recorded from the second
respondent and also the deposition made before this Court, it is clear that
there is evidence to attract the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 354,
354A and 354B of IPC against the petitioner. Therefore, the judgment cited
by the petitioner is not helpful to the case on hand.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in
2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar
& Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the
petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts
have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:47:04 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7478 and 7480 of 2024
a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore,
there was no prima facie case made out as against the accused. It could be
done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and
by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final
order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency
statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
13. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment
reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated
17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the
disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation
of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this Court has no
power to consider the disputed facts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated
02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs.
K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for
quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:47:04 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7478 and 7480 of 2024
an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court
should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form
the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain offences complained of.
Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions requisite for
taking cognizance have been complied with or not and whether the
allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would
not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to prove
the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage
i.e., during trial.
15. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage that the initiation
of criminal proceeding itself is malicious. Whether the criminal proceeding
is malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this state. The same is
required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the
ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot
be entertained to quash the entire proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:47:04 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7478 and 7480 of 2024
16. In view of the above, this Court finds that there is absolutely no
ground to quash both the proceedings. Accordingly, these Criminal Original
Petitions are dismissed. However, the Trial Court is directed to conduct a
simultaneous trial in C.C. Nos. 26 and 27 of 2024 and dispose of the same
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
03.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
kv
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Tirupattur, Tirupattur District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Tirupattur Town Police Station,
Tirupattur, Tirupattur District.
3. The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Tirupattur.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:47:04 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.7478 and 7480 of 2024
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
kv
Crl.O.P.Nos.7478 and 7480 of 2024
03.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:47:04 pm )
