The court emphasized the need for proper application of legal standards in cognizance and clarified the scope of plea bargaining, particularly regarding non-gender offences.

ORDER

Against the petitioner G.Venkateshan, Keevalur Police, Nagapattinam registered a case in Crime No.258/2021 on 02/04/2021 for offences under sections 173, 294(b), 323, 342, 353, 427 of I.P.C and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act on the complaint given by Tmt.Bagyalakshmi, aged 53 years working as Junior Bailiff at District Court, Nagapattinam.

2. According to the complainant, on 02/04/2021 at about 2.00 p.m she went to the residence of the Village School Headmistress Smt.Geetha W/o.Venkateshan, to serve the garnishee summon in connection with Salary attachment of one Mrs.Libiya Margaret in E.P.No.15/2019 in ARC No.144/2016. When Smt.Geetha refused to receive the warrant and insisted the Junior Bailiff to record “Door locked”, the Junior Bailiff decline her request and insisted to receive the summon. At that time, the petitioner herein/ Mr.G.Venkateshan, the husband of Smt.Geetha came down from the upstairs of the house and prevented the bailiff from serving the Summons. He also started abusing the Junior Bailiff in filthy words. The Junior Bailiff, to record her attempt to serve the notice, took photograph in her cellphone given by the Court. Infuriated by this, the said G.Venkateshan repeatedly slapped the Junior Bailiff on her cheeks and torn her blouse. He twisted her hand and pushed her down. In the melee, the spectacle of the Junior Bailiff was broken. G.Venkatesan locked the gate of the house and wrongfully restrained her inside the house insisting to delete the photo and hand over the phone, if not she will not be allowed to go out. He snatched the summons and INSTEP copy and torn it. On hearing her scream, one of her relative Narayanamoorthy and others opened the gate and rescued her. Hence, the complaint.

3. The completion of investigation culminated in filing of final report and same was taken cognizance by the Learned Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Keelvelur, Nagapattinam in C.C.No.257/2022. The cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate was challenged by the accused G.Venkateshan under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in Crl.O.P.No.22477/2023. This Court on finding that the cognizance of offence taken without application of mind and contrary to the dictum laid by this Court in Shanmugam and others -vs- The Inspector of Police and another reported in 2019 (2) LW (Cri) 263, interfered and quashed the mechanical cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate. This Court remanded the matter back to the Judicial Magistrate with direction to apply its mind on the available materials and pass order strictly in accordance with law.

4. On remand, the Learned Judicial Magistrate closed C.C.No.257/2022. Thereafter, on perusal of the entire materials filed along with the final report, being satisfied that prima facie case is made out only for offences under Section 173, 294(b), 342, 353 and 427 of I.P.C, took for trial in C.C.No.189/2024. The Judicial Magistrate omitted offences under Section 323 I.P.C and Section 4 of TNPWH Act observing that those offences are not made out from the material placed by the prosecution.

5. The accused Mr.G.Venkateshan again revived his plea to quash, stating that the case was foisted against him due to the pressure of the defacto complainant and her colleagues in the Court. The complaint is made with suppression of the real fact happened in his house on the day of the occurrence.

6. According to the petitioner, his wife Smt.Geetha is the Headmistress of the Panchayat Union Middle School, Vandaloor. One of the Teacher by name S.Libiyamargret working in that School is the judgement debtor in ARC No.144/2016. As a garnishee, the Headmistress was asked to deduct the decree amount from the salary of S.Libiyamargret and remit it to the Court. The summon sought to be served on a public Holiday (Good Friday) by the defacto complainant. She was accompanied by one Narayanamoorthy, who is not a Court employee. The defacto complainant wanted the rubber stamp of the School to be affixed in