1. The petition is filed seeking to call for the records in CC No. 101 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal and quash the same.

2. The respondent has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C for the alleged offence under Sections 292, 292-A and 293 IPC before the learned District Munsif- cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal. According to the complainant, the petitioner has authored a book by name ”Breathless in Bombay” and the same was published in India. According to the complainant, the book was highly loaded with obscene stories with a view to expose the readers‘ mind to impure, lecherous substance. Particularly the chapter “Traffic” between the pages 23 and 58 was basically obscene and the complainant has extracted certain wordings of the chapter and would state that it has been written clearly with an intention to degrade the women of India and has been written without any conscience and the author is squarely coming within the purview of the Sections 292, 292-A and 293 IPC by writing obscene stories.

3. The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, after taking a sworn in statement from the complainant, has taken the case on file in C.C No.101 of 2009. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner, who is the author of the book, is before this Court.

4. Ms. Geetha, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the author is a Bombay based acclaimed writer whose books are sold worldwide and he was also nominated twice for Pushcart Prize and has won John Gilgun Fiction Award for the best story of the year and his book has also been shortlisted for Common Wealth Writers‘ Prize. The learned counsel pointed out that the book cannot be said to be an obscene object as contemplated under Section 293 IPC and will also not attract Section 292 or 292-A IPC.

5. The learned counsel pointed out that filing of a private complaint and taking cognizance is nothing but abuse of process of Court which has to be interfered with.

6. When the matter was taken up, though the respondent has been served with notices, there was no representation inspite of several adjournments. Therefore, the matter was heard and decided on merits.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

8. The petitioner who is the author of the book named “Breathless in Bombay” has come forward to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Kodaikanal. According to the complainant, he is a practicing lawyer in Madras High Court and a resident of Poompari village at Kodaikanal and he is a voracious reader. The complainant has recently obtained a book authored by the petitioner by name “Breathless in Bombay”. During the High Court Pooja holidays, he came to Poomparai village and during his free time, he read the book and was shocked to see the obscenity in the book. Therefore, the complaint was filed before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal.

9. On the other hand, the petitioner would claim that his work is of a literary art and was acclaimed as a best book of short stories. Various reviews under the questionable chapter are also produced by the petitioner.

10. According to the petitioner, the following excerpts are extracted from the book, which are stated to be obscene and derogatory:

i) She allowed him to curl up night after night in her arms in the fold of the body.

ii) Her tenderness would give way to torrid love making mostly silent in the dark.

iii) She would moan and groan away.

iv) She hated herself for doing this, forbearing this willy, thrashing woman.

v) It serves to enhance Nandakumar‘s confidence she was game.

vi) When they were like this (compromising in position) she would dream of her old boy friends and old lovers, men she had been with for a night or a month, boys at her college who are there only to deliver, only to quench and