The court emphasized the importance of evidence and proper communication of court orders in criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in Crime No.238 of 2019 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same.)

1. The petitioner herein was arrested on 22.03.2019 for questioning the de facto complainant, who is the Block Development Officer, for stopping his car for vehicular check during the parliament election.

2. As per the complaint, when the de facto complainant and their team members were discharging their duty as the Election Officers conducting vehicular check near Selvapuram check post, Coimbatore, the petitioner herein was proceeding in his Swift Dzire car bearing Registration No.TN 66 K 2493 was stopped for vehicular check. Since the petitioner has already been subjected to vehicular check at Telugu palayam junction, he has scolded the team members for subjecting his vehicular check once again as he is urgently proceeding, however, the squad team headed by the de facto complainant persisted to check the vehicle. Hence wordy quarrel has been erupted leading to arrest of the petitioner and registration of the case in Crime No.238 of 2019 under Section 294(b), 353 of I.P.C., and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, on the allegations that the petitioner prevented the Government servant from discharging her duty, abused her with obscene words in front of the public and harassed her.

3. When the quash petition came up for consideration before this Court, this Court granted an order of interim stay of further proceedings vide order dated 08.04.2019. However, the Investigating Officer proceeded with the investigation and filed a final report and the same has been taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore in C.C.No.1291 of 2019. Hence the petitioner has filed a contempt petition for the willful disobedience of this Court order.

4. This Court on perusing the record pertaining to the Contempt Petition No.348 of 2020, vide order dated 12.02.2021, satisfied that the interim order of stay of further proceedings has not been properly communicated to the Investigating Officer and therefore, he has proceeded with the investigation and filed a final report.

5. Having noted that the contempt petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final report in the manner known to law, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the averments made in the complaint are exaggerated version of an infuriated public servant, who was not tolerable to the voice of the general public being harassed in the name of vehicular check.

6. The entire reading of the complaint does not attract the offence under Section 294(b) or 353 of I.P.C., much less offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. Adding injury to himself in spite of the stay order, the Investigating Officer ignoring the same had filed the final report after recording the statements of 7 witnesses, who are none other than the team members of the de facto complainant.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the State submitted that as far as filing of the final report is concerned, this Court has already taken note of the fact that the interim order was not communicated to the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the target of contempt and contempt petition was defeated. In so far as the merit of the case, since the final report has already been filed, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, his remedy is to challenge the final report as pointed out by the learned Judge in the contempt petition vide order dated 12.02.2021.

8. In the normal circumstances, this Court would have accepted the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), however, on perusing the statements of 7 witnesses relied by the prosecution and the final report, which has been filed in spite of the stay order of this Court, this Court finds that the complaint is liable to be quashed on t