O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to call for the records relating to C.C.No.3900/2017 in Crime No.13/2017 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai-

600 001 and quash the same.

2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner prefacing his argument stating that it is an unfortunate case, where the victim girl has been transposed as an accused, prays for quash of final report taken on file as C.C.No.3900/2017 by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

3.The final report is the outcome of investigation on the complaint given by the Registrar (Administration) of the Madras High Court reporting about the physical assault on an Advocate by name Raghavan by group of Advocates on 27/04/2017 near Court Hall No.10, First Floor of the High Court Old Building.

4.The gist of the complaint as found in the First Information Report is as follows:-

“ On 27/04/2017, about 14.45 hrs three male Advocates , along with a woman, physically assaulted one Mr.Raghavan, Advocate near Court Hall No.10 in the first floor of the High Court Old Building. This incident was witnessed by Ct.S.Riyaz Mideen and Head Constable Md.A.Ali of the C.I.S.F and the occurrence has been captured by the C.C.T.V. Camera. The Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F. ISD Madras High Court, Chennai has sent a report dated 29.04.2017 along with a compact disc containing the C.C.T.V. Footage. The C.C.T.V. Footage was played and the enquiry conducted reveals that the assailants were (1)Mr.K.Bharathi, and advocate (Enrolment No.1711/03) of Democaratic Advocates Association, S/o S.Kumaraswamy residing at No.99, G3, Bhayalakshmi Apartment, Nainiammal Street, Krishnapurm, Ambaturr, Chennai-53 (2) Mr.M.Shankar, Advocate(Enrolment No.2525 of 2013), S/o R.Mohan, No.2, Bajanai Koil Street, Kaiyanapuram, Ambattur, Chennai-53 and (3)Ms.V.Seetha, a 2nd year Law student pursuing law in Andhra Pradesh, residing at No.2/93 MGR Nagar, Janappa Chathiram, Chennai. We were not able to identify the fourth male who had assulted Mr.Raghavan, Advocate. Since the aforesaid four persons have committed cognizable offences within the high security zone of the High Court, a case may be registered against them and action be taken in accordance with law. The delay in lodging the complaint had occasioned on account of the steps taken for identifying the persons from the video footage and also in getting approval from the Hon'ble Security Committee of the Madras High Court.”

5.Based on this complaint, the respondent police has conducted investigation and filed final report arraying these petitioners as Accused 1 to 3. The final report indicates the CCTV footage captured the occurrence of the crime and the statement of witnesses, who are mostly CISF personnels on duty in the High Court campus, being a security zone disclose sufficient material to prosecute them for offences under Sections

341, 294 ( b) , 325 and 506 (i) of IPC.

6.But then, the petitioners claim that the alleged incident is the follow up consequence of the earlier incident, which happened inside the Court Hall No.10, when an Advocate (later his name came to be know as A.R.Raghavan) came near the third petitioner herein, [a law student joined as Intern in the second accused's office], promised her to keep happy, get jewels for her and give whatever she want and as quit pro quo rd sought for sexual favour from her. When her senior(3 petitioner) came to the Court Hall, the third petitioner narrated to her Senior about the sexual remarks made by the said Advocate. Her Senior asked the said Advocate (Raghavan) to come outside the Court Hall and he questioned Raghavan about his misbehaviour with the third petitioner. The said Raghavan slapped the second petitioner. The Advocates standing nearby rescued her Senior, the second petitioner.

7.She gave a complaint to the Registrar (Administration), High Court of Madras, on the same day and requested to take action against the said Advocat