ORDER

This Petition has been filed by the accused in C.C.No. 638 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, seeking to quash the said calendar case.

2. The petitioner is an advocate. A complaint had been given by the second respondent to the first respondent, who registered First Information Report in Cr.No. 1039 of 2001 under Sections 341, 506(ii) IPC read with Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Woman Harassment Act of 1998. The first respondent filed a final report on 29.08.2004 dropping further action. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, also recorded the said final report by an order dated 27.10.2004. Thereafter, the first respondent had given a letter to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, on 07.09.2006 seeking copies of the records. On 15.09.2006, a petition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., was filed by the first respondent for further investigation. On 21.09.2006, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, passed a detailed order in the said petition directing the First Information Report report to be re-opened and granting permission to the Investigating Officer to re-investigate the entire issue. The first respondent thereafter conducted further investigation and recorded the statements of nine witnesses and thereafter filed a final report charging the accused/petitioner herein with commission of offence under Sections 341, 506(ii) IPC read with Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, 1998. The said final report was taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, who thereafter issued summons to the petitioner herein.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 06.09.2021, it was informed that the petitioner/accused had been questioned on the charges. This Court therefore directed that the trial can continue.

4. The main ground on which the calendar case is sought to be quashed is that the first respondent had originally filed final report dropping further action and thereafter had filed an application seeking to re-

investigate the complaint and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, had also granted such permission and that the final report was thereafter filed and it is complained that such acts are violative of Section 362 Cr.P.C., which provides that a Court should not alternate a Judgment. It was also contended that after the final report had been accepted by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, it cannot be thereafter once again re-opened.

5. Reliance was also placed on AIR 1996 SC 1619 [Common Cause Registered Society Vs. Union of India & Others] for the proposition that the petitioner, as an accused, is entitled for speedy trial. It was pointed out that the complaint was given in the year 2001 and finally taken cognizance only in the year 2006. It was therefore stated that the further progress of the calendar case should be quashed.

6. All these contentions were strongly refuted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who contended that the learned Judicial Magistrate has every right to direct re-investigation on application filed by the Investigating Officer and the procedure followed was lawfully correct.

It was also pointed out that the petitioner being an Advocate, original witnesses did not come forward to give statements but thereafter, the witnesses actually gave statements, and it is evident that a cognizable offence had been made out and therefore a final report had been filed which had been taken cognizance after following due procedure by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor therefore stated that trial should be conducted and that the present petition should be dismissed.

7. The learned counsel for the second respondent also stated the facts and further pointed out that notice had been issued to the second respondent to adduce evidence and therefore urged that the Court should not interfere at this stage.

8. I have carefully co