Criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner were quashed due to mala fides and lack of merit, emphasizing the importance of prior disciplinary outcomes.

ORDER :

(N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.)

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.20 of 2021 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Judge, Karur.

2. The second respondent gave a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was sending false complaints against the second respondent to various authorities and by making baseless allegations and that the petitioner was repeatedly alleging that the second respondent is involved in corruption. Action was initiated against the petitioner for insubordination and the petitioner was preventing the second respondent from effectively doing her official duty. When the second respondent went for inspection to the concerned School, the petitioner threatened the second respondent that she is a woman and that she must only comply with what the petitioner is saying and thereby the second respondent was harassed. The sum and substance of the complaint is that the petitioner was continuously harassing the second respondent by sending E-mails with derogative remarks / statements and threatening letters along with the newspaper clippings and also subjected the second respondent to an investigation by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, which was investigated and closed. That apart, the petitioner even without having any consideration that the second respondent is a lady was continuously sending defamatory petitions and E-mails to all schools and higher authorities. Based on this complaint, an FIR came to be registered by the second respondent in Crime No.264 of 2014. On completion of investigation, the police report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur and later, the case was made over to the learned Additional Mahila Judge, Karur and was taken cognizance for offence under Sections 353 , 506(i) and 507 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act , 1998. After taking cognizance, process was issued to the petitioner and the proceedings has been put to challenge in the present quash petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

4. The sum and substance of the submissions made on the side of the petitioner is that the criminal proceedings itself is attended with mala fides, since the petitioner was questioning the conduct of the second respondent, who was working as Chief Educational Officer at the relevant point of time and as a result, the petitioner was suspended and disciplinary proceedings were initiated and ultimately, the departmental proceedings came to an end on the ground that the charges were not proved. Several orders were also passed by this Court in this regard. Keeping this in mind, the second respondent was prosecuting the petitioner before a Criminal Court. It was further submitted that the First Information Report was put to challenge in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14346 of 2014 and this Court prima facie found that the proceedings is attended with mala fides and the investigation was stayed and in spite of the same, the police proceeded further with the investigation and filed the police report.

5. Per contra, the stand taken by the second respondent is that the petitioner was repeatedly harassing the second respondent by giving various complaints and sending derogatory communication through E-mails only with a view to threaten the second respondent and prevent her from doing her duty. That apart, the unruly behavior of the petitioner resulted in a disciplinary action against him for which he was also suspended. Ultimately, the petitioner was targeting the second respondent, since she was a lady officer and the petitioner was showing his superiority and was literally intimidating the second respondent. It was submitted that there are prima facie materials to proceed further against the petitioner and hence, the second respondent sought for the dismissal of this petition.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working in a Higher Secondary School. The disp