Specific allegations in the FIR and the necessity to state the words uttered by the accused in cases of alleged obscene acts are crucial for sustaining charges.

1. This petition is filed to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 512 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, having been taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 294(b) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act against the petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant studied Nursing at the petitioner's Nursing Institute during 2007-08. Since her father died, she has been appointed on compassionate ground in the same Institute from July 2009. During that time, the petitioner started compelling her to marry him. Thereafter, she got married with another person viz. C. Shanmugam. Even, after the marriage, the petitioner harassed the defacto complainant by phone and also through messages. Therefore, she lodged a complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No. 343 of 2013 and charge sheet has been laid by the first respondent, which was taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 294(b) of I.P.C. And Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent/defacto complainant lodged the complaint on 17.05.2013 alleging that when she was working in the petitioner's institution during the year 2009, she was compelled to marry the petitioner. When she got married with one Shanmugam, the petitioner harassed her through phone and also by messages. Whereas, she developed the allegations when her statement was recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. that the petitioner came to her house on 16.05.2013 and abused her with filthy language. It is nothing but an afterthought and completely with different version, charge sheet has been laid as against the petitioner.

4. He would further contend that the offence under Section 294(b) of I.P.C. is not at all attracted against the petitioner, since the allegation itself is bald and vague. When there is no specific allegations uttered by the petitioner, he cannot be charged for the offence under Section 294(b) of I.P.C. Further, he would submit that no other witnesses, except the second respondent even whispered about the alleged occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. Further, the list of witnesses are non other than the own husband and brother of the second respondent. No independent witness has been examined by the first respondent. Therefore, he prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that when the defacto complainant was working under the petitioner during 2009, the petitioner harassed her and also compelled her to marry him. When she got married with another person, he came to her house and abused her with filthy language and hence, the offence under Section 294(b) of I.P.C. is clearly made out as against the petitioner. Further, he also compelled the defacto complainant to marry him and there are clinching evidence to connect the accused for the offences under Section 294(b) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act and as such, the present petition has been filed only to drag the proceedings and the grounds raised by the petitioner have to be tested during the trial and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the materials available on record.

7. Admittedly, the defacto complainant had worked for sometime during the year 2009 in the petitioner's institution. When she was working under the petitioner, she was compelled to marry the petitioner. However, she got married with one Shanmugam. It is seen from the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. that no one even whispered as to when the marriage took place between the second respondent and Shanmugam. Therefore, the complaint itself is a belated one. Further, it is