The initiation of criminal proceedings is deemed an abuse of process when subsequent to prior complaints suggesting retaliation.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2026 The accused in Crime No.221/2018 of Chittar police station, filed this WP(C) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing Ext.P1 FIR and Ext.P2 final report. The offences alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 354-D (i) of IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that the accused with the intention to obtain sexual favours from the defacto complainant requested for sexual favours from her and exposed his naked body to her for over one year prior to 23.03.2018.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a false case foisted against the petitioner due to the on going dispute between the defacto complainant and the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner has produced Ext.P3 copy of the petition register issued from Chittar police station, which shows that on 28.02.2018, the wife of the petitioner had given a complainant to the police alleging that the defacto complainant herein abused her as well as a neighbour, using filthy words. From Ext.P3 it can also be seen that the police summoned both the parties and conducted enquiry and warned the defacto complainant and accordingly the said petition was closed.

4. The present FIR was registered only on 03.04.2018 on the basis of Ext.P1 complaint dated 03.04.2018, more than one month after Ext.P3. In Ext.P3, there is only a general allegation that the petitioner used to request for sexual favours and exposed his naked body. The details like date and time of the alleged incident were not disclosed in Ext.P1.

5. In Ext.P1 itself it is stated that there was an incident on 23.02.2018 in which the petitioner had wordily quarrel with one Pushpakumar as he was seen at about 10.00 p.m., near the residence of the defacto complainant. With regard to the above incident, Pushpakumar told the defacto complainant and on the next day she sent her son to the residence of the petitioner to ask about the same. It appears that in the said altercation between Pushpakumar and petitioner some allegations were raised against the defacto complainant herein.

6. It is true that the complaint given by the wife of the petitioner which resulted in Ext.P3 is not produced in this case. However, the said complaint should have been given before 28.02.2018. If there was any genuine grievance to the defacto complainant she would have raise the same before the police while settling the dispute on 28.02.2018. In the absence of any such complaint on 28.02.2018 there is every reason to believe that the present complaint was filed as an after thought, in retaliation to Ext.P3. In the above circumstances, continuation of further proceedings in Exts.P1 & P2 will only be an abuse of the process of the Court and as such this Crl.M.C. is liable to be allowed.

In the result, this WP(C) is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance to Ext.P1 FIR and Ext.P2 final report is quashed.

Sd/-