ORDER :

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.19 of 2013 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi and quash the same.

2. The petitioners submit that the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant has lodged a complaint against them on 26.10.2012 around 5.15 p.m., alleging that on 23.10.2012 around 10.30 p.m., the petitioners in an inebriated condition committed acts of mischief and broke the window of the defacto complainant's house. Based on the complaint, a case has been registered by the 1st respondent police under Sections 427, 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC. Further, the petitioners submit that the complaint lodged against them lacks bonafide and it is highly mischievous. The petitioners were summoned by Court on 10.07.2013 and they have denied the incident. Only thereafter, they came to know that the magistrate in addition to the provisions under which the police had launched a Criminal Complaint had included Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 1998. None of the allegations made against the petitioners either on the complaint or on the prima facie evidence adduced before it warrant framing of charge under Act 44 of 1998. Hence they prayed for quashing the complaint on the following grounds :

a. That the complaint made against the petitioners is fictitious and false.

b. That the petitioners have not indulged in harassment of a woman that had caused intimidation, fear, shame or embarrassment, particularly to LW1, warranting a criminal charge under Section 4 of the Act.

c. That the allegations against the petitioners is created falsely and made with an oblique motive and that too, after 3 days of the alleged incident. Belated launching of the FIR remains unexplained particularly when the Police Station is hardly 4 kms away from the residence.

d. That an earlier complaint had been lodged on 23.10.12 and withholding of the complaint from the purview of the court is fatal. A second complaint on the same subject is not maintainable.

e. That the prosecution is attempting to shield the truth and built a false case without any justification and on the facts of the case, the occurrences attributed would not attract Section 294(b) of Indian Penal Code.

f. That the valuation of the property, alleged to have been damaged is not fortified by prosecution by placing any records. Consequently, framing of charge sheet under Section 427 is impermissible.

g. That the filing of a charge sheet under Section 506(I) is absolutely misconceived as the statement of LW 1 to LW 7 would not even prima facie prove the complaint under the aforesaid provision.

h. That when the prosecution had placed the charge sheet under Section 294(b), 427, 506(I) of Indian Penal Code, the magistrate is not justified in directing the enquiry under Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 1998.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a Learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of an offence must record his reason for issuing process against the accused. But the Court below after taking cognizance of the offence has only made an endorsement in the bottom of the charge sheet “the case in C.C.No.19 of 2013 is taken on file under Section 294(b) 427 and 506(i) IPC, Issue summon to A1 and A2” and has not assigned any reason for the same.

4. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on various judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which reads as follows :-

i. [Shanmugam and Others v. Inspector of Police and Another] reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 2667 : (2019) 2 LW (Cri) 263. The relevant portions of the judgment is extracted hereunder :

“18. The Court below has taken cognizance of the complaint by merely affixing a “Rubber Stamp” as follows :-

“CC.No.104/2018

Taken on file on 27-08-18

U/s.465, 467, 468, 471 IPC

and posted to 17.09.2018

P.C.A used is on

Judicial Magistrate No.I

Ariyalur

19. It has been repeatedly held