IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
D. Deeneesh - Appellant
Versus
State Represented by its the Inspector of Police, S-11 Police Station, Chennai & Another - Respondent
Crl.O.P. No. 12740 of 2021 & Crl.M.P. No. 7056 of 2021
Decided On : 05-01-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 - Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(i) and Section 4 – Indian Penal code, 1860 - Section 381 - To quash FIR – Delay in filing of FIR - Held, statement of witnesses are all parrot version and identification of petitioner is highly doubtful - There is delay of two days in lodging complaint, no explanation is given - For complaint lodged FIR has been registered after two days - In meantime, medical records have been created to support complaint - No reason has been given for lodging complaint after two days and no information was sent by Government Hospital, to respondent Police - Respondent to create defence for theft case, lodged false complaint against petitioner - Only after petitioner father’s effort, FIR was registered belatedly and on same day, present FIR got registered against petitioner - Statement of witnesses are highly doubtful and unbelievable and investigation conducted by respondent Police is clouded with mystery, which cannot be approved - Court finds that continuation of investigation against petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law and FIR in is liable to be quashed - Criminal Original Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the FIR in Crime No.40 of 2020 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, S-11 Tambaram Police Station, Chennai-600 045.
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.40 of 2020, pending on the file of the 1st respondent Police.
2. The 2nd respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 25.01.2020, for alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 23.01.2020. The complaint of the 2nd respondent is registered as Crime No.40 of 2021, for offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(i) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
3. The gist of the case is that the 2nd respondent is residing with her husband and they have three children. The first daughter of the 2nd respondent got married and living separately and other two children are residing with her. Her husband was working as Security in Sree Sankara Bala Vidyalaya Golden Jubilee School, Chennai. The 2nd respondent was working as housemaid in CTO colony, Chennai in six houses for the past five years. On 23.01.2020, at about 01.30 p.m., after finishing work, when the 2nd respondent was returning home in her bicycle through 4th Street, CTO colony, the petitioner herein said to have restrained her, pushed her down, abused, dragged her and also slapped on her cheek. The petitioner also abused the 2nd respondent that nobody is coming for housemaid work in his house due to her act. When the public came to help her, the petitioner abused and threatened them to disperse. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent informed her son about the happenings, who took her to Government Hospital, Chrompet for treatment. Since there is contusion on her body, she took CT Scan Ortho and X-Ray and produced the same along with the complaint. Due to the assault of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent was unable to carry on with her routine normal work. Hence, she lodged the above complaint.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier, the petitioner’s father has lodged a complaint against the 2nd respondent on 28.01.2020 to the 1st respondent Police. He stated that on 04.09.2019, the petitioner’s father had gone out to accompany his grand daughter and his wife and after reaching home, he saw missing of 8 ½ sovereigns of gold chain. Prior to this occurrence, 15 sovereigns of gold chain were found missing. Suspecting the 2nd respondent, who worked as housemaid in his home, he lodged a complaint. Initially, C.S.R.No.794 of 2019 was assigned and later, a case in Crime No.41 of 2020, for offence under Section 381 IPC registered. To escape from the criminal complaint lodged by the petitioner’s father, the 2nd respondent projected that she was assaulted by the petitioner on 25.01.2020. The 1st respondent Police though registered FIRs on both the complaint of the petitioner’s father and the 2nd respondent, he failed to follow the Police Standing Order 588A.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has completed B.E., Electronic Communication and MBA in Loyola College and now working as Software Designer in Cognizant Technology at Solinganallur. The petitioner was sent to Musqat by Cognizant Technology and returned to Chennai only on 20.01.2020. Now, he is residing with his parents. The 1st respondent Police for the reasons best known, had closed the FIR registered on the complaint of the petitioner’s father in Crime No.41 of 2020 as ‘Undetectable’ on 06.01.2021. As against the closure report, the petitioner’s father filed a protest petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. He further submitted that prior to the registration of FIR on the complaint of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner’s father had sent a representation to the Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai and the Joint Commissioner of Police, South. He further
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.