The court emphasized that consensual relationships cannot be criminalized under the SC/ST Act, and false allegations aimed at coercing individuals where lawful actions should not be subjected to prosecution.

ORDER :

Seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.124 of 2024, dated 20.11.2024, on the file of the 2^nd Respondent Police, for the offence under Sections 417, 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Petitioner/A3, has filed the present Criminal Original Petition.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.05.2024, the 3rd respondent/3^rd respondent belongs to Schedule Caste community. The 3^rd respondent and her husband eke out their livelihood by doing coolie works. The Petitioner's husband Pandiaraj employed the 3^rd respondent as coolie in his field. The 3^rd respondent started working in Pandiaraj field. During this period, the 3^rd respondent and Petitioner's husband Pandiaraj developed a relationship. When this relationship between the 3^rd respondent and Pandiaraj came out in open, the family members of Pandiaraj viz., his sisters advised Pandiaraj to severe all his ties with the 3^rd respondent. The Petitioner and her sister-in-laws are implicated as Accused 2 & 4 as though they abused the 3^rd respondent calling her by caste name. Further, the Petitioner and her family members abused the 3^rd respondent by citing her societal status and community backdrop. Because of the act of the Petitioner's husband Pandiaraj, the 3^rd respondent's life got spoiled, her husband not accepting her and nobody to take care. The Petitioner and other accused are in possession of photographs and video of Pandiaraj and 3^rd respondent being together and threatening to use the same to further defame, cause damage and chase the 3^rd respondent from the area. Hence, the 2^nd Respondent Police registered the Impugned F.I.R under Sections 417, 341, 294 (b), 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the allegation of the prosecution case is totally false and the Petitioner not committed any offence as alleged by the Respondents. The Petitioner got married to the said M.Pandiyaraj, an Ex-Army man, out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with one Daughter. The Petitioner is working as Assistant Professor in Ramco Engineering College at Rajaplayam, Virudhunagar District. The Petitioner's husband, an ex-service man from Indian Army, now settled at Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District and doing Agriculture. The Petitioner because of her avocation and daughter's education, they were residing in her parent's house at Srivilliputtur. During weekends, vacation and holidays, the Petitioner and her Daughter will spend time at Petitioner's husband's place at Aruppukkottai. The 3^rd respondent was employed as a labour in Petitioner husband's grove and in order to extort money induced, the Petitioner's husband fell in relationship with her which was not known to the petitioner who was staying in Rajapalayam with her daughter independently. Later the petitioner's husband Pandiaraj started avoiding the 3^rd respondent on the advise of his family members. The petitioner was kept away of any news in this regard. When the Petitioner's husband started avoiding the 3^rd respondent, she targeted the Petitioner taking advantage of her societal background to extort money from the Petitioner by foisting false complaint. The 3^rd respondent is now advised by a team of legal professionals, hence the petitioner has been roped in.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegations leveled in the complaint that the Petitioner and his family members are in possession of photos and