ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 of IPC r/w. Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, in Crime No.673 of 2019, as against this petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant is hired as a Watchwomen from a Security Agency for a ladies Hostel running at I & II Floor of Sundaram Appartment, Door No.178, Y Block, First Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai. While, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant was going to the first floor for signing in attendance register, the petitioner/accused, who is the brother of Beula Rajkumari and occupant of ground floor flat intercepted her to reach first floor. While she was returning to the ground floor with chairs, the petitioner/accused had pulled the chair to his house side and the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant pulled the chair in her side. During that scuffle, the petitioner /accused has loudly asked the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant to leave the chairs and also punched on the face of the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant. Due to that, there was a bleeding in the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant's nose and mouth and she suffered injuries. Thereafter, when the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant was sitting in the Car Parking, the petitioner/accused had twisted the hand of the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant. Thereafter, the co-worker one Menaka informed the above incident over phone and then the staff of the security agency took the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant to the Hospital. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.673 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 of IPC r/w. Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.5 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.

5. Heard Mr.R.Anishkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent.

6. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as follows:-

"12.So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.

13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.

7. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows:

“19. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both side