The court clarified that continuing prosecution without sufficient allegations amounting to criminal offenses constitutes an abuse of process under Section 528 BNSS, 2023.

ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Preface

This Criminal Original Petition is an invocation of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS , 2023, seeking quashment of the prosecution in C.C.No.71 of 2024 arising out of Crime No.519 of 2024, registered for the alleged offences under Sections 294 (b), 353 and 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act , 2002.

2. The contours of the inherent power are well settled. It is not a forum for a mini-trial, yet, where even on an uncontroverted reading of the prosecution materials the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are absent, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process, warranting interference.

Case of the Prosecution:

3. On 22.06.2024, the second respondent /de facto complainant, stated to be a Traffic Police Officer, imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- on the petitioner for alleged motor vehicle violations (absence of “proper number plate”, and sun-control film). On 23.06.2024 at about 10.30 a.m., when the de facto complainant was regulating vehicular traffic at the place mentioned in the records, the petitioner allegedly came in his car, got down, questioned the fine, abused the de facto complainant using “obscene / filthy language”, threatened her, and thereby deterred / obstructed her in discharge of her duty and criminally intimidated her.

4. Based on the complaint dated 23.06.2024, the FIR came to be registered in Crime No.519 of 2024, and upon investigation, a final report was filed, which is taken cognizance as C.C.No.71 of 2024.

Grounds urged in the Petition:

5. Section 294 (b) IPC is not attracted as the complaint does not disclose the specific obscene words and the material does not disclose “public annoyance”. Section 353 is not made out as there is no allegation of assault or use of criminal force, at best, the allegations are of verbal altercation / shouting. Section 506 (1) is not attracted as the complaint does not disclose a threat of such nature as to cause alarm, and the allegations are vague. Section 4 of the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 is not made out, as there is no pleaded indecent act or conduct amounting to harassment within the meaning of the Act. The case is alleged to be politically motivated and the petitioner claims false implication owing to political vendetta.

Counter and Submissions of the Prosecution:

6. The first respondent, in the counter affidavit, would submit inter alia that the petitioner is politically influential and had violated motor vehicle rules; on 23.06.2024. The petitioner came to the traffic point and abused / threatened the de facto complainant while she was on duty; statements of witnesses have been recorded and there are eye-witnesses; further, electronic / video material is stated to have been collected. The petitioner is also stated to have been involved in previous cases; the truthfulness of the allegations must be tested only in trial and therefore the petition must be dismissed.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would contend that even if the Court does not proceed on Section 294 (b), the act of the petitioner in coming to the spot, quarrelling, threatening and preventing the officer from effectively regulating traffic would attract Section 353 and 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of the State Act and that the matter is trial-worthy especially in view of the asserted electronic evidence.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, per contra, would submit that the prosecution’s own case discloses only a verbal exchange and alleged threats, and there i