JUDGMENT :

1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.174 of 2010, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi.

2. Based on the complaint given by the defacto-complainant, an F.I.R came to be registered by the respondent Police for the offence under Section 292(a) and Section 506 (i) of I.P.C and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. The respondent Police investigated the case and final report came to be filed before the Court below and the same was taken cognizance for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 and Section 506(i) of I.P.C. The charges were also framed by the Court below and the same has been put to challenge in this Criminal Original Petition.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto-complainant had dispute with her husband Balaji and there was a Civil Suit pending between them. The 2nd respondent also gave an complaint against the said Balaji for an offence under SC/ST Act and the same was pending in Special S.C.No.1 of 2009 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore. The petitioner was a practising advocate in Vellore and he came in contact with the 2nd respondent and offered to help her in the pending cases. It is the further case of the prosecution is that the petitioner started putting pressure on the 2nd respondent to marry him and was sending threatening messages to her cellphone. It is also the further case of the prosecution that certain vulgar messages were also sent to the 2nd respondent by the petitioner.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that a reading of the entire allegations made in the final report, even if it is taken as it is, will not constitute an offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. In order to substantiate his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following Judgments:-

(1) I.Linga Bhaskar and others vs. The State through the Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station, Thoothukudi and another, dated 05.06.2018, reported in (2018)-2-L. W (Crl.) 309.

(2) 1.Gouresh Mehra, 2.Susil Mehra vs. 1.The State rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, CCB Egmore, Chennai 2.Rajesh Arora, dated 25.10.2010.

(3) 1. M. Arunachalam 2.Deepa vs. The Inspector of Police, B-5 Police Station, Singanallore, Coimbatore, dated 20.09.2018.

5. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the proceedings pending before the Court below is an abuse of process of Court and the same requires interference by this Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973

6. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto-complainant would submit that the petitioner was continuously sending messages to the defacto-complainant's mobile phone to marry him and also was sending Vulgar messages to the defacto-complainant. The learned counsel would submit that Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act has to be read along with the Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and therefore even if the messages were sent to her mobile phone, the same will constitute an offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

7. In this case, even-though the final report was filed for an alleged offence under Section 506(i) I.P.C and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, the charges came to be framed against the petitioner only for an offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Therefore, this Court has to see as to whether on the basis of the allegations made in the final report, an offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act has been made out. In order to substantiate his arguments, the learned counsel for the defacto-complainant relied upon the Judgment of this Court in Basheer Ahamed and Others vs