SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2519

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Seetha Lakshmi - Petitioner 
Versus 
State, Rep. by The Deputy/Assistant Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District and Ors. – Respondents
Crl. O.P.(MD).No.2560 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.1335 of 2021
Decided On : 29-11-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. Navaneetharaja
For the Respondents:Mrs. Aasha, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), Mr. S. Poornachandran, Amicus Curiae.

Court rules police can register FIR for threatening false evidence under Section 195A of IPC, without prior complaint from a court, reinforcing legislative intent for cognizability.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - The Indian Penal Code - Sections 195A, 201, 508(1) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Offence of threatening to give false evidence in cognizable cases - Court held that the police can register a case under Section 195A even without a prior complaint by the court, distinguishing it from Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The accused pressured witnesses to alter their evidence, meeting the criteria for intimidation under Section 195A. (Paras 1-34)

(B) Jurisdiction of Police - The court analyzed police jurisdiction under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. in cognizable offences, reinforcing that the legislature intended Section 195A of IPC to fall within cognizable categorization, allowing police to take action. (Paras 1, 10, 29)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced charges of threatening witnesses in a child sexual abuse case, leading to a criminal original petition to quash the Final Report against her. The prosecution accused her of pressuring the victim children to give false evidence.

Findings of Court:
The Court found sufficient prima facie evidence to maintain the petitioner’s charges under Section 195A, determining the registration of the FIR was valid.

Issues: Whether police had jurisdiction to file an FIR under Section 195A of IPC; whether sufficient evidence existed against the petitioner for prosecution under this act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the words ‘namely’ used in legal texts indicate essential inclusions, clarifying the application of Sections 195 and 195A; hence, police action was permissible in this context.

Result: Criminal Original Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. the background of the case involving multiple accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. procedural aspects of the petition and victim representation. (Para 5 , 6)
3. arguments about jurisdiction and legal interpretation of section 195a. (Para 7 , 8 , 11)
4. relying on past judgments to support arguments. (Para 9 , 10 , 12)
5. allegations of threatening witnesses. (Para 13 , 14)
6. counterarguments made by the state about threat definitions. (Para 15 , 16)
7. court's interpretation of relevant legal provisions. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24)
8. differences in legislative intent within penal code sections. (Para 22 , 23 , 27 , 28)
9. conclusion on the applicability of section 195a. (Para 29 , 30)
10. final ruling dismissing the original petition. (Para 32 , 33)

ORDER :

D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed with a prayer to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.39 of 2020 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sivagangai and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

2. The above case arises out of Crime No.04 of 2020 on the file of the All Women Police Station, Sivagangai for the alleged offences under Sections 195A, 201, 508(1) and 214 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') read with Section 3(2)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act') and Section 16 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act').

3. There are three accused in the above case. The first accused is one Murugan, the second accused is the petitioner herein and the third accused is one Indraganthi. The case of the prosecution is that L.W.1, the victim child involved in this case was aged about 14 years in the year 2015. She belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. Since her mother died, she was in the care of her grandmother, who is L.W.5. While there, she stayed in a Home namely, Jebathota Magizhchi Illam and was studying IV standard in the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Periyanarikottai village. At that time, the first accused was the Headmaster of the said school. On 06.04.2015, at about 3.00 P.M., the first accused took the child to the toilet of the school and committed penetrative sexual assault on the child. As such, a case in Crime No.6 of 2015 was registered and after investigation, finding prima facie material against the first accused concerning the victim-child and also some more children, a Final Report was filed against the first accused under Section 6 read with Section 5 (f)(1)(m)(o)(p), Section 10 read with Section 9 (f)(d) of the POCSO Act read with Section 3(1)(xi)(xii) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Ordinance Amendment Act, 1989 and Rule 7(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 and the case is taken on file and is pending in Spl. S.C.No.15 of 2015.

4. When the matter was pending, on 24.04.2016, knowing the fact that the victim child was supposed to give evidence on 25.04.2016, the first accused, along with his wife/petitioner herein, who is the second accused, went to the house of the child and also her grandmother and pressurised and threatened them to give false evidence in the case. Similarly, they went to the houses of the other victim-children involved in the case and pressured them to give false evidence. In continuation thereof, when the victim child and the other victim children came to the Court on 25.04.2016 at about 9.45 A.M to depose before the Court, the first accused took them to the chambers of the Special Public Prosecutor, the third accused. The third accused, being in the position of the Special Public Prosecutor, instead of encouraging them to speak the truth, to save the first accuse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top