SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1426

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
N. Mohamed Farook & Others - Appellant
Versus
State through the Inspector of Police, Koodal Pudur Police Station, Madurai & Another - Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 2096 of 2022 & Crl.M.P(MD) No. 1569 of 2022
Decided On : 04-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:S.R. Rajagopal, S.MP. Amalan, Advocates. For the Respondents:R1, K. Sanjai Gandhi, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), R2, M. Sricharan Rangarajan, S. Ramsundarvijayraj, Advocates.

Prima facie evidence and applicability of specific legal provisions are essential to sustain a criminal complaint.

Headnote:

Harassment - Criminal Original Petition - Sections 406, 420, 294(b), 323, 506(1) of I.P.C and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the essential ingredients of each offense, including breach of trust under Section 406, fraudulent inducement under Section 420, lascivious elements under Section 294(b), intention to cause hurt under Section 323, and intention to cause alarm under Section 506(1) of I.P.C. The court also analyzed the applicability of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and emphasized the need for the alleged offense to have taken place within specific locations. The judgment highlighted the absence of prima facie evidence for the offenses alleged and the belated nature of the complaint, ultimately leading to the quashing of the FIR.

Fact of the Case:

The second respondent alleged that the petitioners failed to settle bills for goods supplied, threatened them, and abused them with filthy language. The first respondent registered an FIR for various offenses under I.P.C and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complaint was belated and lacked valid reasons for the delay. It emphasized the absence of prima facie evidence for the alleged offenses and concluded that the FIR could not be sustained against the petitioners.

Issues: Belated complaint, absence of prima facie evidence for alleged offenses, applicability of specific legal provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for prima facie evidence and the applicability of specific legal provisions to sustain the FIR. It also highlighted the belated nature of the complaint and the absence of valid reasons for the delay.

Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition stands allowed, and the FIR in Crime No.16 of 2022 is quashed.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in relation on the complaint filed by the second respondent with the first respondent on 08.01.2022 at 20.35 hours and registered as a case in Crime No.16 of 2022 alleging offences under Sections 406, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of I.P.C and read with Section 4 of Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and quash the same.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.16 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of I.P.C read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act as against the petitioners.

2. The second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that she along with her husband are involved in the supply of Good Night, Gokul Sandal Powder, Medimix Soap, Johnson and Johnson Products, Padmini Agarbathi's and VVD Coconut oil. While being so, they were approached by the accused persons and placed orders to supply products to their shop and they assured that they will settle the bills on a monthly credit basis. Thereby, they induced the second respondent to supply the goods. Believing the said words, the second respondent started supplying goods from the year 2015, however, after some period, the accused failed to settle the bills on a monthly basis and when the second respondent approached the accused persons to settle the amount, they promised that the pending amount will be like a bank deposit and it would be settled soon. They also requested to supply the goods without any interruption on the assurance that they will settle the bill. Accordingly, so far from 22.06.2015 to 22.07.2021, the second respondent supplied goods to the tune of Rs.47,15,828/-. When the second respondent asked for payment on 25.11.2021, the accused persons threatened them with dire consequences and abused them with a filthy words. On receipt of the said complaint, the first registered the F.I.R in Crime No.16 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of I.P.C read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act as against the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been procuring the products and commodities for its store in Koodal Nagar and Vilangudi on a wholesale basis from the second respondent agencies for the past 10 years. They have made timely payments towards the goods supplied by way of cash and cheques. The payments made towards the goods supplied are reflected in the statement of accounts and in the Income Tax returns filed by the first petitioner herein. While being so, the products supplied by the second respondent were of bad quality and as such, the petitioners stopped purchasing the goods from their agencies. Due to which, false complaint has been foisted as against the petitioners. Even assuming that there is any amount payable by the petitioners on the supply of goods, it is completely business transaction and civil in nature. Admittedly, all along the petitioners are paying amounts for the goods supplied by them. If at all any due from the petitioners, it would not amount to attract any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. Further, the alleged occurrence took place on 25.11.2021, whereas the second respondent lodged the complaint only on 08.01.2022. There is no sufficient reasons stated by the second respondent to lodge the belated complaint.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the incident is alleged to have been taken place at the residence of the first respondent at Karimedu at about 06.00 am. The complaint alleges dues of amounts ever since from the year 2015 and there to be a running transaction. Therefore, the present complaint is nothing but to extract money by abuse of process of law. The allegations in the complaint does not constitute any cognizable o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top