Madras High Court
Mohanakrishnan vs The State Inspector Of Police on 22 October, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.21064 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.21064 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.Nos.14457 & 14459 of 2023
Mohanakrishnan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station
Ooty, The Nilgiris
Crime No.12 of 2022
2. Redacted ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the proceeding pending as against
the petitioner in PRC.No.4 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Udhagamandalam
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balasubramaniam
For R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : No appearance
ORDER
The petitioner/sole accused seeks to quash the final report in
PRC.No.4 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(k),
506(1), 450, 354A & 354B of IPC on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Udhagamandalam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:04 pm )
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows:-
The petitioner and the second respondent/victim were working in the
office of the Superintendent of Police, Nilgiris District. The accused had
exercised his dominant position against the will of the victim and had
committed rape. According to the victim, in June, 2018, the accused came
to her house and had sexual intercourse against her will, committed rape
and threatened the victim. Therefore, she has given a complaint before the
Superintendent of Police on 05.12.2022. On 07.12.2022, the second
respondent was called for enquiry before the Vishaka Committee, however,
the second respondent has not made any complaint on sexual assault. But,
later, after gaining confidence, she has given the complaint against the
petitioner and the same has culminated into final report. The petitioner has
come up by way of this petition to quash the final report.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
has already given a complaint on 05.12.2022, wherein, she never whispered
about such sexual assault or rape, that apart, in the complaint given before
the Internal Complaints Committee on 07.12.2022 also, she did not
whisper, whereas, in the third complaint, she has introduced the new theory,
therefore, the entire complaint is a result of motive. Hence, seeks for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:04 pm )
quashment of the final report.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor and perused the materials placed on record.
5. The statement of victim clearly indicate that the alleged act of
sexual harassments and rape, this Court, at this stage, cannot conduct
roving enquiry as to whether such evidence is true or not. Though, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice that in
earlier two complaints, the alleged rape was missing and the internal
committee report is also in favour of the petitioner, the documents can very
well be used in the trial to test the veracity and shake her credibility in the
cross examination. Once the petitioner is able to show that she is not
reliable and her credibility is not worth accepting, it is for the trial court to
appreciate the evidence. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer the judgment
reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 110 (Veena Mittal vs State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors), wherein, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“ 6..... It is well-settled that at the stage when the High Court
considers a petition for quashing criminal proceedings under
Section 482 of the CrPC, the allegations in the FIR must be
read as they stand and it is only if on the face of the
allegations that no offence, as alleged, has been made out,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:04 pm )
that the Court may be justified in exercising its jurisdiction to
quash.....”
6. Such view of the matter, I do not find any merits in this petition
and this petition stands dismissed. At this stage, the learned counsel for the
petitioner sought indulgence of the Court, to dispense with the personal
appearance of the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. In view
of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the personal
appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with except for receiving copies,
for answering the charges, for questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C./351
BNSS, 2023 and any other dates fixed by the trial Court. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22.10.2025
dhk
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:04 pm )
To
1. The State Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station
Ooty, The Nilgiris
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court
Udhagamandalam
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:04 pm )
dhk
22.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:04 pm )
