Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1607
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
Robin Jesudasan - Petitioner
Vs
State by The Inspector of Police, Vadavalli Police Station, Coimbatore District – Respondent
Crl.OP No.3264 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014
Decided on : 24-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.P.Kumaresan
For the Respondent:Mr.B.Ramesh Babu, Govt.Advocate (Crl.side), Mr.Govind Chandra
The principle of Double Jeopardy under Section 300 of Cr.P.C protects individuals from being tried or punished twice for the same offense based on the same set of facts.
Headnote:
Double Jeopardy - Criminal Offense - Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women's Harassment Act 1998, Section 9(n) read with 12 of POSCO Act 2012, Section 4 of TNPWH Act - Section 300 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of sexual assault under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women's Harassment Act 1998 and Section 9(n) read with 12 of POSCO Act 2012. The trial court acquitted the accused in a separate case (C.C.No.9 of 2014) based on the same set of facts and charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused cannot undergo trial for the same offense twice, as it would violate the principle of Double Jeopardy under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. The court set aside the proceedings in C.C.No.22 of 2014 based on the principle of protection against Double Jeopardy.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused could be tried for the same offense twice, and whether the principle of Double Jeopardy under Section 300 of Cr.P.C applied.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of Double Jeopardy under Section 300 of Cr.P.C, which protects a person from multiple punishments or successive prosecution based on the same facts of a case. The acquittal of the accused in a previous case based on the same set of facts and charges necessitated setting aside the proceedings in the current case.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the C.C.No.22 of 2014 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) was quashed.
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to Crime No.521 of 2013 from the file of the Inspector of Police, Vadavalli Police Station, Coimbatore District and quash the same.
2. None appeared for the second respondent.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the 1st respondent police registered a case against the petitioner here based upon the 2nd respondent complainant for the allegation he has committed offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women's Harassment Act 1998.
4. The 2nd respondent herein Mrs.Shanthi and her daughter and her husband J.Suresh occupied the 1st floor of the house of petitioner, herein, on a monthly rent of Rs.5000/- and a deposit of Rs.20,000/- as advance. The advance was paid in two installment. Petitioner is running a trading Company under the name and style "Super Greeny & Packs Pvt.Ltd" in Coimbatore.
5. On 04.06.2012, the 2nd respondent's husband joined the petitioner's trading company as sales executive at the request made by the 2nd respondent herein. From June 2012, the 2nd respondent entered into tenant relationship with the petitioner. They had wonderful and cordial relationship until her husband was terminated from the petitioner's enterprise for incompetence and inefficiency. The petitioner submits that when his mother asked the 2nd respondent to vacate the house for her personal use, the 2nd respondent lodged false complaints against the petitioner periodically. He returned the advance deposit of Rs.20,000/- on 15.04.2013, when his mother requested the 2nd respondent to vacate the petitioner premises. The defacto complainant claims in her voluminous complaint that the incident of sexual assault on her daughter took place in the ground floor where petitioner stays. Similarly, she claims another incident of sexual assault without date or time.
6. The 2nd respondent's husband was misbehaving with the customers of his company and hence, he terminated him from the company. To wreak a vengeance the 2nd respondent has given a false and lengthy complaint against the petitioner. So, the petitioner preferred a complaint on 28.04.2013 against the 2nd respondent's husband for threatening the petitioner and CSR was given by the respondent in CSR No.148 of 2013. Thereafter she chose to prefer a complaint of sexual harassment as a counterblast. The 2nd respondent and her husband on 29.04.2013, lodged a complaint against the petitioner. Later the petitioner received a call on 24.05.2013 from an unknown number 9380539441 claimed to be Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore and asked to settle certain amount to escape from the 2nd respondent complaint. The petitioner forwarded a complaint to Superintendent of Police on 25.05.2013 to take action against them.
7. On 04.06.2013, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.18,000/- towards the balance of salary of the 2nd respondent at the instigation of 1st respondent police. The 2nd respondent also gave an undertaking that she withdraw her complaint and thereafter she preferred false complaint against the petitioner before the respondent police with ulterior motive.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the second respondent/defacto complainant gave a criminal colour to settle the civil dispute of tenancy, as they are land owner of tenant and to overcome financial crisis of the complainant and the complaint itself is an abuse of process of law.
9. The first respondent through the Public Prosecutor filed the counter stated that the complainant /2nd respondent Tmt.Shanthi has stated that she was a tenant of the petitioner/accused Robin Jesudasan, her husband was working as Marketing Manager under the petitioner/accused and the accused's parents are residing at Nagpoor. On requisition of the mother of the accused, the complainant provides meals to the petitioner/accused.
10. On 25.12.2012 the complainant's daughter/victim Paulin Ruby aged about 14 years went to the peti
