Mere delay in lodging the FIR is not sufficient grounds to quash a prosecution case, especially when there is prima facie evidence in the charge-sheet.

On the letter given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 24.04.2017, this matter has been listed today in the special sitting.

2. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash C.C.No.17 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate/Additional Mahila Court, Madurai in connection with Crime No.1212 of 2015 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station(E3), Madurai.

3. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent/Police registered a case in Crime No.1212 of 2015 on 20.7.2015 and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in C.C.No.17 of 2016, before the learned Judicial Magistrate/Addl.Mahila Court, Madurai for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Women Harassment Act. The accused challenging the same, is before this Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent.

5. It is the case of the de-facto complainant that she had filed W.P.No.7189 of 2015 before the High Court and obtained orders of status-quo with regard to the appointment of Poojari for the Pandi Koil, on account of which, the accused were having some grievances against her. It is further alleged by the de-facto complainant that on 17.07.2015, around 7.00 a.m., in the morning, when she was coming from the temple all the four named accused waylaid her, abused her and assaulted her and tore her jacket. She has named all the accused in the complaint. Based on which, an FIR was registered as stated above, which has resulted in C.C.No.17 of 2016, which is under challenge.

6. Mr. Palani Velayutham, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the entire prosecution case is a fabricated one. Inasmuch as the Accident Register shows that Sumathi was admitted in the hospital on 17.07.2015 at 6.30 p.m., but whereas, in her complaint, she has stated that she was assaulted at 6.40 a.m. He also contended that though the assault had taken place on 17.7.2015, the FIR was registered only on 20.7.2015 with a delay of two days, which is inexplicable. Lastly, Mr.Palani Velayutham, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the name of the fourth accused in the charge-sheet was shown as Nagaraj, son of Nagamalai. But in the list of prosecution witnesses, Nagaraj, son of Nagamalai is shown as third witness. Therefore he submitted that Nagaraj, son of Nagamalai was not involved in the offence and that is why he was shown as prosecution witness in the memo of witness and therefore, the prosecution is an abuse of process of law.

7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) refuted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners.

8. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.

9. From the Accident Register, it is clear that Sumathi was admitted in the hospital on 17.07.2015 and at the time of admission, she has told the Doctor that she was assaulted by three known persons at 6.30 a.m., on 17.7.2015 with iron rods. But however, in the complaint given by her, she has implicated Nagaraj also, who is said to have abused her and assaulted her on the back. Initially, the Police had taken the complaint of Sumathi in C.S.R.No.940 of 2015 and only thereafter, an FIR was registered subsequently. Therefore, it cannot be stated that there is a delay by the first respondent/Police in lodging the FIR. That apart, mere delay in lodging the FIR is not a ground to quash the prosecution case, when the fact remains that Sumathi had suffered injuries and had identified four persons, who have assaulted her. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that Nagaraj/A4 has been shown as prosecution witness No.3, this Court finds that though the father's name of A4 and prosecution witness No.3 is one and the same, namely Nagamalai, yet the address differs in the 161(3) state