Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
N. Chandramohan – Petitioner
Versus
The State by The Inspector of Police, W-6, All Women Police Station, Kilpauk, and Ors. – Respondents
CRL.O.P.No.21414 of 2019
Decided On : 20-08-2019
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 - Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 – FIR – Quash - Petitioner in year and out of said wedlock two girl children were born and they are aged about years and years respectively - Complaint proceeds as if there is an illicit relationship between petitioner who is father and daughter who is aged about years and respondent is said to have warned petitioner regarding same - Respondent proceeds to allege that she was able to see some bodily changes of her elder daughter and goes to extent of saying that elder daughter also became pregnant and same was terminated by giving native medicine - Therefore respondent has removed both daughters from custody of petitioner and handed them over to Government Home - When above complaint was given by respondent going by serious allegations –Held, Sexual assault sexual harassment etc and that is why Act specifically provides for legal presumption as to commission of offence and culpable mental state once prosecution is launched this Act - Burden of proof is upon accused to prove that he had no such mental state with respect to Act charged as an offence in that prosecution - Consequences of prosecuting person this Act are very serious and apart from providing for stringent punishments person who is prosecuted virtually comes down in eyes of society at large and he is virtually shunned from main stream of society - Court was able to find that Act has been misused by respondent - If that had not happened petitioner would have been forced to go through the rigor of trial and situation would have turned even more murkier - Court prosecution against petitioner should not continue even for minute more and it has to be immediately interfered and FIR has to be quashed in order to bring to an end malicious prosecution which is of monstrous proportions - Respondent even without caring for future of her own daughter has proceeded to give complaint alleging illicit relationship between her husband and daughter just to make petitioner fall in line and to get daughters into her custody -This is worst type of false prosecution Court can ever encounter - Court respondent should not be let off and she should be made to suffer consequences for having given false complaint against her husband at cost of her own daughter - Respondent police directed to immediately proceed against respondent Section Act for having given false complaint and take action against her in accordance with law - This case should be lesson for all those who attempt to misuse provisions of this Act just to satisfy their own selfish ends - Petition allowed
ORDER :
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for records and quash the FIR in Crime No.11 of 2018 on the file of the 1st respondent police.
1. This is one of those unfortunate cases where the wife has resorted to giving a complaint against her husband alleging that he has committed sexual assault against their daughter, who is aged about 11 years.
2. The 2nd respondent has given a complaint to the respondent police stating that she married the petitioner in the year 2003 and out of the said wedlock, two girl children were born and they are aged about 11 years and 1½ years respectively. The complaint proceeds as if there is an illicit relationship between the petitioner, who is the father and the daughter, who is aged about 11 years and the 2nd respondent is said to have warned the petitioner regarding the same. The 2nd respondent proceeds to allege that she was able to see some bodily changes of her elder daughter and goes to the extent of saying that the elder daughter also became pregnant and the same was terminated by giving native medicine. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has removed both the daughters from the custody of the petitioner and handed them over to the Government Home.
3. When the above complaint was given by the 2nd respondent, going by the serious allegations made in the compliant, the respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No.11 of 2018 for an offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
4. The petitioner apprehended arrest by the respondent police and therefore approached this Court by filing an Anticipatory Bail petition in Crl.O.P.No.30114 of 2018. Since this Court was shocked at the allegations made in the complaint, this Court summoned the minor girl in order to enquire her in person. The minor/victim girl appeared before this Court and completely denied the allegations made against the petitioner.
5. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is none other than the father of the victim girl. There was a dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, therefore a false complaint filed as against the petitioner. Further he also submits that the defacto complainant and the petitioner were separated from their matrimonial life and their children are in custody of the petitioner, and he sought for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is the father of the victim girl and he sexually assaulted the victim minor girl. Hence, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. In this regard, this Court has enquired the victim girl, during which she completely denied the allegations lodged by the defacto complainant. Further, she stated that she never undergone treatment at any hospital for aborting child as alleged by the defacto complainant. It is seen that the defacto complainant lodged a false complaint with an ulterior motive to threaten the petitioner.”
6. This Court categorically found that the defacto complainant lodged a false complaint with an ulterior motive to threaten the petitioner and thereby granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The present petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR on the ground that the FIR itself is an abuse of process of law and is being used as an instrument to threaten the petitioner and to wreck vengeance against the petitioner.
8. This Court summoned the 164 statement recorded by the learned Additional Family Court Judge, Egmore, from the victim girl. While questioning, the victim girl has clearly narr
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
