SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Mad) 3018

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. MALA, J.
K. Pooliah Thevar & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
The State rep.by its The Inspector of Police, Kayathar Police Station, Tuticorin District & Ors. - Respondents
CRL.O.P.(MD)No.12197 of 2009 & M.P(MD).No.1 of 2009
Decided On : 06.10.2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioners: Mr. M. Veilkani Raju.
For Respondents:Mr. K. Anbarasan Govt. Advocate for R1.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that there can be no allegation of harassment as against the woman, as per the provision of Section 2(a) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, and a previous judgment, influencing the court's decision to quash the charge sheet for the offences under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act against the petitioner who is A4.

Headnote:

Harassment - Women Harassment Act - The court quashed the charge sheet for the offences under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act against the petitioner who is a college student, citing the provision of Section 2(a) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 and a previous judgment that held there can be no allegation of harassment as against the woman.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought to quash the charges under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act, stating that the fourth petitioner, a college student, had not committed any offence under Section 4 of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court quashed the charge sheet for the offences under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act against the petitioner who is A4, while directing the fourth petitioner to face the case for other offences. The court also directed the disposal of the case within four months.

Issues: Quashing of charges under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act, applicability of Section 2(a) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, and the status of the discharge petition filed by the fourth petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provision of Section 2(a) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, and a previous judgment that held there can be no allegation of harassment as against the woman, to quash the charge sheet for the offences under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act against the petitioner who is A4.

Final Decision: The court quashed the charge sheet for the offences under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act against the petitioner who is A4, while directing the fourth petitioner to face the case for other offences and ordering the disposal of the case within four months.

ORDER

The petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking to call for the records in C.C. No.110 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District and quash the same, stating that the petitioners are facing the charges under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this petition as against the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 has already been dismissed as not pressed on 23.12.2009 itself. He further submitted that as far as the fourth petitioner is concerned she is a College student and she has not committed any offence. Furthermore, as per Section 2(a) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, no woman can be punished for the offence of Women Harassment Act, and that has been decided by this Court in the judgment in Basheer Ahamed and others -vs- State rep.by the Inspector of Police, W 13, All Women Police Station, Washermenpet Circle, Chennai-21 reported in 2006 (4) CTC 374 and hence on this sole ground the fourth petitioner prays for quashing the proceedings in respect of Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act.

3. Resisting the same, the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the fourth respondent herself field a discharge petition, which is pending before the Court, during the pendency of which she has come forward with this petition. Hence, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) prays for dismissal of the petition.

4. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the typed set of papers, it is seen that on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent, the case has been registered and after due investigation charge sheet has been filed for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act. Since the interim stay has been granted by this Court the discharge application has been filed by the petitioners has been pending before the Magistrate Court. Even though this application has been filed by all the accused namely A1 to A4, A1 to A3 have not pressed the petition. Now, the arguments advanced only in respect of A4 would submit that A4 is a College going student and no offence has been made under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act, since the petitioner is a woman. So, it is appropriate to incorporate the provisions of Section 2(a) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, which reads as follows:-

Section 2(a)."harassment" means any indecent conduct or act by a man which causes or is likely to cause intimidation, fear, shame or embarrassment, including abusing or causing hurt or nuisance or assault or use of force".

In the decision in Basheer Ahamed and others -vs- State rep.by the Inspector of Police, W 13, All Women Police Station, Washermenpet Circle, Chennai-21 referred to supra, in paragraph 9' it was held that there can be no allegation of harassment as against the woman. It is appropriate to incorporate the paragraph 9' reads as follows:

"9. There is a specific allegation of harassment as against the husband as well as the father-in-law by the de-facto complainant. Therefore, the first accused and the second accused will have to face trial. The petition is thus partly allowed. Going by the definition under Section 2(a) of the said Act, there can no allegation of harassment as against the woman. Therefore, the charges as against the mother-in-law (A-3) will have to be quashed."

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the decision in Basheer Ahamed and others -vs- State rep.by the Inspector of Police, W 13, All Women Police Station, Washermenpet Circle, Chennai-21, it is a fit case for quashing the charge sheet for the offences under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act, against the petitioner who is A4. In respect of the other offences against the fourth petit



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top