Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 2311
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA
Raja @ Selvaraj & Another
Versus
The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Gobichettipalayam
Crl.R.C.Nos.131 & 76 of 2007 & M.P.No.1 of 2007
Decided on: 13-07-2009
For the Petitioner:Pari Ramaiah, Advocate. For the Respondent: R. Muniyapparaj, G.A.
The special enactment proscribes specific types of conduct as an offense, and its application should be considered in the context of the complaint and the definitions provided within the Act.
Headnote:
Harassment of Women - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 173, Sections 354, 506(i), 498, 509, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of (Harassment of Women) Act - The court discussed the application of Section 4 of the Act in the context of the complaint of harassment in an educational institution and compared its elements with those of Sections 498 and 509 of IPC. The court emphasized that the special enactment proscribes specific types of conduct as an offense and highlighted the definition of harassment under the Act. The court concluded that there was no merit in the revisions and dismissed the petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The police laid a report for offenses under Sections 354 and 506(i) IPC against the accused. The de-facto complainant filed a petition for including Sections 498 and 509 of IPC, which was dismissed. Additional charges under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of (Harassment of Women) Act were framed, leading to the filing of revision petitions by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application of Section 4 of the Act in the case of harassment in an educational institution was justified. It emphasized that the special enactment proscribes specific types of conduct as an offense and highlighted the definition of harassment under the Act. The court concluded that there was no merit in the revisions and dismissed the petitions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the application of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of (Harassment of Women) Act in the context of the complaint of harassment in an educational institution, the comparison of its elements with those of Sections 498 and 509 of IPC, and the discretion of the lower court to frame additional charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the elements of Section 4 of the Act, the comparison of its provisions with those of Sections 498 and 509 of IPC, and the discretion of the lower court to frame additional charges.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petitions and directed the Magistrate to dispose of the matter on merits within a period of four months.
Challenging and impugning the order dated 210. 2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Gobichettipalayam, in Crl.M.P.No.4644 of 2006 in C.C.No.34 of 2006, these criminal revision cases are focussed.
2. Compendiously and concisely, the facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this case would run thus:-
The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 354 and 506(i) IPC as against the accused. When the matter has been pending before the Magistrate concerned, the de-facto complainant herself filed a petition for including Sections 498 and 509 of IPC. But the said petition was dismissed. Charges were framed by the Magistrate for the offences under Sections 354 and 506(i) IPC. Thereafter Additional Public Prosecutor concerned filed Crl.M.P.No.4644 of 2006 for framing additional charge under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of (Harassment of Women) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) and it was allowed. Being aggrieved by and disconcerted with the order of the Court below in Crl.M.P.No.4644 of 2006, the petitioners/accused have filed these revision petitions, raising various grounds, the warp and woof of them would run thus:-
The learned Magistrate, after categorically arriving at the conclusion that no offences under Sections 498 and 509 of IPC had been made, he was not justified in veering round and taking a plea quite antithetical to what he committed himself in black and white in the form of the earlier order dated 6. 2006, in passing the present order dated 210. 2006, as though the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of (Harassment of Women) Act has been made out.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non-application of law in passing the order dated 210. 2006 for including Section 4 of the Act also in the charges.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, by inviting the attention of this Court to the various portions of the records available, would set forth and put forth his argument to the effect that the accused persons should not be kept under tenterhooks by going on suggesting or changing the penal Sections as against them, even though the law might permit alteration of charge on sound grounds and not on flimsy grounds. After the Magistrate having exercised his discretion not to add any more offences in the charge, which were framed under Section 354 and 506(i) of IPC, he was not justified in passing the impugned order.
6. Whereas, the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side), by way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments, as put forth on the side of the revision petitioners, would submit that the very complaint itself attracts Section 4 of the said Act, as the definition harassment as contained in the said special enactment would include the nature of the offence complained of in the FIR and as such, there is no embargo under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C.for framing additional charge under Section 4 of the Act.
7. At this juncture, I would like to refer to the FIR itself. A plain reading of it would highlight and spotlight that the de-facto complaint is working as Headmistress in C.I.G.Mission Elementary School. It is the specific complaint of her that the accused herein, namely, Raja @ Selvaraj, being the Correspondent and Stanley Jones, being the Principal, respectively, indulged in demanding from the de-facto complainant sexual favours and according to her, these acts of accused took place in the educational institution, itself.
8. At this stage, this Court is not expected to probe into the fact as to whether the allegations in the complaint are true or false. During trial alone all these facts could be gone into and it is for the trial Court to come to a reasoned conclusion.
9. The point to be considered here is as to whether the earlier order dated 6. 2006 passed by the Magistrate is an embargo for passing t
