ORDER :

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records pertaining to Crime No. 2 of 2021 registered by the first respondent Inspector of Police, CBCID, OCU Police Station-II, Chennai and quash the FIR as against the petitioner.

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to Crime No. 2 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

2. The case in Crime No. 2 of 2021 has been registered against the petitioner on the allegations of sexual harassment caused by him to the second respondent between the academic year 2010-2011. The second respondent has sent a complaint through E-mail on 20.07.2021 and the F.I.R. has been registered on the basis of the same for the offences under Section 354 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

3. Before adverting into the facts and merits of this petition, the trajectory which led to this stage of the order needs to be mentioned. By virtue of an earlier order dated 17.10.2022, this Criminal Original Petition got disposed. The order was to the effect of quashing the F.I.R. by allowing the petition on the ground of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C.

4. Subsequently the second respondent has filed a petition to recall the order by stating that she has not been given with notice before disposing the Criminal Original Petition. Though the first respondent/State was heard at length, the State had also filed a separate petition seeking the same prayer by stating the same reasons as stated by the second respondent. Those petitions have been dealt in Crl.M.P.Nos.16421 and 16422 of 2022. During the course of hearing of those petitions, the first respondent submitted that the charge sheet has been filed and it has been taken on file by the trial Court in C.C.No. 654 of 2022, even when the Criminal Original Petition was heard and hence the Criminal Original petition ought to have been dismissed as infructuous.

5. Leaving aside the said fact which was not brought to the notice of the Court during the appropriate time, the main thrust for the petition filed to recall was not the submission of want of notice of opportunity for the second respondent. The de facto complainant wished to be heard despite the State was heard on her behalf by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in J.K. International vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Others, (2001) 3 SCC 462. By accepting the observation made in the above judgment, the petition filed by the de facto complainant in Crl.M.P.No. 16421 of 2022 to recall the order was allowed and the other petition filed by the State in Crl.M.P.No. 16422 of 2022 has been disposed as superfluous by a common order dated 21.11.2022. The said order shall form part of these proceedings which led to the present order.

6. In pursuant to the above said order, the Criminal Original Petition was heard afresh by allowing the second respondent also to make her submissions.

7. With regard to the fact that the charge sheet has been filed already, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his petition to quash the F.I.R. is still maintainable, because the offence itself is barred by limitation even on the day when the second respondent sent her complaint through E-mail and hence filing of the charge sheet is non-est in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that even at the time of filing the charge sheet, the prosecution did not file any petition under Section 473 Cr.P.C. for extension of limitation/condonation of delay. The said fact was accepted by the second respondent also and in fact by way of caution, the second respondent is said to have filed a Criminal Revision Petition to set aside the order of cognizance, in order to enable the first respondent to file the charge sheet along with the petition to condone the delay.

8. Though the present order to be passed in this petition wou