IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 24.01.2022

C O R A M

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

Crl. O.P. Nos.15565 and 12039 of 2018

and

Crl.M.P.No.7942 and 6349 of 2018

KasturiRangan

... Petitioner/1^st Accused in Crl.O.P.No.15565

of 2018

Vinodh Madhavan

... Petitioner/3^rd Accused in

Crl.O.P.No.12039 of 2018

Vs

1. The Inspector of Police

Thalambur Police Station,

Thalambur,

Kancheepuram.

2. Nalini Shree

..Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps/

Complainant & Defacto Complainant

COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section

482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records

pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.83 of 2018 on the file of

Inspector of Police, Thalambur Police Station, Thalambur,

Kancheepuram and quash the same.

For Petitioners in both Crl.O.Ps : MR.B.Ravi

For Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar for R1

Government Advocate(Crl.side)

COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Original petitions have been filed to call

for the records and to quash the proceedings pertaining to the

FIR in Crime No.83 of 2018 on the file of Inspector of Police,

Thalambur Police Station, Thalambur, Kancheepuram for the

offence under Sections 420, 506(i) IPC r/w 4 of Tamilnadu

Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002.

2. The crux of the allegations is that the defacto

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

complainant is a practicing lawyer in this court and has filed

the complaint against the petitioners. The allegations in the

complaint indicate that she is the owner of the land situated at

Mayfair Apartments and lakewood enclave villas in

S.Nos.66 and 67 situated at Talambur Village. She has entered

into a joint venture with Srinivasa Shipping Private Ltd. for

promoting the above projects. Thereafter, Mayfair Apartments

project was concluded and the builder has sold his 1 flat out of

44 flats and the defacto complainant has sold two flats out of

44 flats allotted to her. After the sale was made, the

purchaser has decided to form an Association, so that they can

get corpus fund from the builder for administrating the welfare

of the residents.

3. Accordingly, there was a meeting convened and it was

conducted on 10.09.2017. In that meeting, the defacto

complainant was elected as President. One Kasthri Rangan who is

the Father-In-Law of Vinoth Madhavan, though not a purchaser

agreed to be Secretary and another person as Treasurer. When

the matter stood thus, one Gnanaprakash sent an E-mail, that

they were going to conduct an election on 04.03.2018. They also

took away the keys of the cabin from Security persons. As there

was dispute raised by them, later, Vinoth Madhavan, son-in-law

of Kasthuri Rangan, sent an E-mail attributing to various

remarks which are derogatory in nature with no iota of evidence

about the meeting. This act shows that they abused the defacto

complainant in public domain. Accordingly, FIR has been lodged

against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 420, 506

(1) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment

of Woman Act, 2002.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the FIR is nothing but abuse of process of law. Absolutely

there is no evidence and the entire dispute appears to be with

regard to the Apartment Association and no other allegations

whatsoever made against the petitioners for the alleged cheating

etc. Whereas, FIR proceeded as if E-mail contains derogative

statements and harassment of the women. It is also submitted

that E-mail is said to have been sent by the petitioners. The

petitioners have not made any act showing the semblance of

allegations to attract the alleged offence of harassment of

women. Therefore, it is nothing but abuse of process of law.

Hence, he prayed to quash the FIR.

5. This Court has perused the entire materials

available on record. As reg