Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
N. Narayana Reddy - Appellant
Versus
The State Rep by The Sub Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri & Others - Respondent
Crl. O.P. Nos. 15727, 15728 & 15729 of 2015 & 14864 of 2021 & Crl. M.P. Nos. 8086 & 8087 of 2020 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 07-04-2022
ABUSE OF PROCESS - Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - 354, 506 (I) I.P.C. r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act - 294 (b), 323, 506 (i) I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, 2002
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed Criminal Original Petitions to quash cases filed against him, alleging that the cases were falsely engineered at the instigation of Suresh Babu due to a property dispute. The complaints were sent to the Chief Minister's cell and forwarded to the police station, and the petitioner claimed that the complaints were identical and false.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the complaints in C.C.No.44 of 2015, C.C.No.45 of 2015, and C.C.No.46 of 2015 were given falsely against the petitioner to harass him with criminal prosecutions. The Court quashed these cases. However, in C.C.No.65 of 2020, the Court found that there were materials to frame charges against the petitioner for a trial, and therefore, the proceedings could not be quashed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authenticity of the complaints and whether they were given falsely to harass the petitioner, as well as the presence of materials to frame charges against the petitioner in C.C.No.65 of 2020.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the complaints in C.C.No.44 of 2015, C.C.No.45 of 2015, and C.C.No.46 of 2015 were identical and similar in nature, with minimal changes, and that the allegations made in the complaints were absurd and inherently impossible. The Court also considered the medical evidence and witness statements in C.C.No.65 of 2020 to determine the presence of materials for framing charges.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.46 of 2015, C.C.No.45 of 2015, and C.C.No.44 of 2015, and dismissed the Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.14864 of 2021. The proceedings in C.C.No.65 of 2020 could not be quashed, and the Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.14864 of 2021 was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.15727 of 2015:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of the case in C.C.No.46 of 2015, on the file of the learned District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai and quash the same.
Crl.O.P.No.15728 of 2015:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of the case in C.C.No.45 of 2015, on the file of the learned District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai and quash the same.
Crl.O.P.No.15729 of 2015:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of the case in C.C.No.44 of 2015, on the file of the learned District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai and quash the same.
Crl.O.P.No.14864 of 2021:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.65 of 2020, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Denkanikottai and quash the same.)
Common Order
1.Crl.O.P.Nos.15727 of 2015, 15728 of 2015, 15729 of 2015 and 14864 of 2021 are filed to call for the records in C.C.Nos.46 of 2015, 45 of 2015, 44 of 2015 and 65 of 2020 respectively from the file of the learned District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai and quash the same.
2. The final report in C.C.No.44 of 2015 reads as follows, on 31.10.2014 at about 10 a.m. near post office, Denkanikottai police limit, petitioner Narayana Reddy had scolded defacto complainant Maragadham in a filthy language, hit her with a stick on her private part, threatened to kill her and thus petitioner said to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 354, 506 (I) I.P.C. r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act.
3. The final report in C.C.No.45 of 2015 reads as follows, that on 01.11.2014 at about 10 a.m. near Denkanikottai bus stand within Denkanikottai police limit, petitioner Narayana Reddy had scolded defacto complainant Rani in a filthy language and threatened to kill her. Thus, petitioner said to have been committed the offences punishable under Section 506 (I) I.P.C. read with 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act.
4. The final report in C.C.No.46 of 2015 reads as follows, that on 03.11.2014, at about 10 a.m. near Sub Registrar Office, Denkanikottai within the jurisdiction of Denkanikottai police station, petitioner scolded defacto complainant Madhamma in a filthy language and threatened to kill her. Thus, petitioner said to have committed the offences punishable under Section 506 (I) I.P.C. read with 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act.
5. The final report in C.C.No.65 of 2020 reads as follows, that on 23.07.2019 at about 15.00 hours, near Thandarai bus stop within the jurisdiction of Denkanikottai police station in front of defacto complainant Suresh Babu's land, petitioner had scolded witness Kaliammal in a filthy language, hit her with his hand on her back. He threatened, holding an iron pipe, to kill her and PW1 Suresh Babu and pulled the hair and saree of Kaliammal. Thus, petitioner said to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323, 506 (i) I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, 2002.
6. On the basis of the final reports filed against the petitioner, the aforesaid cases in C.C.No.44 of 2015, C.C.No.45 of 2015, C.C.No.46 of 2015 and C.C.No.65 of 2020 had been taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai. Challenging these cases, these Criminal Original Petitions have been filed for quashing.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all these four cases had been registered at the instance and at the instigation of defacto complainant in C.C.No.65 of 2020, Suresh Babu. Petitioner and his brother own vast extent of lands more than 500 acres. There are civil litigations pending in
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and that the court should prevent the abuse of....
The court emphasized the importance of preventing abuse of process of law and considered the nature of the alleged offenses and the existence of serious disputes between the parties in reaching its d....
The court has the power to quash criminal proceedings if they are manifestly attended with malafide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, as established in 'Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v.....
The court affirmed that a pending police investigation does not bar subsequent complaints on similar allegations, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
A petition for quashing criminal proceedings can be dismissed even if one accused has died, as long as there is no legal bar to continuing against the living accused and factual disputes should not b....
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
