Crl op.6373/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:: 02.11.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N. MANJULA

Crl.O.P.NO. 6373 OF 2021

&

Crl.M.P.Nos.4246 & 4248 of 2021

A. Sheik Fareeth

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1. State by Inspector of Police,

Walajapet Police Station,

Ranipet District.

2. Meenakshi

.. Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for

the records in C.C.No.07 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II,

Walajapet and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Murugendran

For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran, APP– R1

No appearance for R2

ORDER

This Criminal Origtinal Petition has been preferred seeking to call for the

records in C.C.No.7 of 2021 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate II,

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl op.6373/2021

Walajapet, and quash the same.

2. The petitioner is an accused against whom the 2^nd respondent/defacto

complainant had given a complaint by alleging harassment and threat. On the

basis of the above complaint, a case has been registered against him in Crime

No.575/2017 by the 1^st respondent police for the offence under section 294(b),

506 IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act,

2002. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the case

has been taken on file in C.C.No.7 of 2021.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the 2^nd respondent/defacto

complainant is a Head Mistress of a Municipal Middle school, in which, the

petitioner was also working as a teacher. On 12.4.2016, she recieved a letter and

she found in the letter that she was abused in filthy language and was

threatened . The 2^nd respondent had further alleged that the hand writing found

in the said letter tallied with the hand writing of the petitioner, therefore she has

a strong suspicion over the petitioner in the said occurrence.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl op.6373/2021

complaint and the statement of the 2^nd respondent, she has been abused only

through the letter by some one; the petitioner did not send any letter to 2^nd

respondent; even if it is taken for the sake of argument that the petitioner had

sent that letter, there is no ingredient to attract the offences made out under

sections 294(b) IPC, 506(i) or section 4 of Tamil Naudu Prohibition of

Harassment of Woman Act,2002; as per section 294(b) IPC and section 4 of

Tamil Naudu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act,2002, the occurrence

should have taken place in a public place; since there is no material to show that

the occurrence had taken place in a public place, no action can be taken against

the petitioner for the offence under section 294(b) and 4 of Tamil Naudu

Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act,2002. He would further submit that

there is no ingredient to attract the offence under section 506(1) IPC as well and

hence the case against the petitioner should be quashed.

5. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent

submitted that there are sufficient materials to show that the handwriting found

in the letter tallies with the hand writing of the petitioner; the content of the letter

would show that it would cause intimidation, shame and embarassment to the

2^nd respondent; there are enough materials to show that there was previous

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl op.6373/2021

enmity between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and the petitioner

used to treat the 2^nd respondent in a degraded manner. the complainant has also

stated that the wife of the petitioner had once come to school and threatened

her.

6. Though notice was served on the defacto complainant and her counsel

Mr.J. Arockiaraj, who entered appearance, no arguments have been advanced on

behalf of the 2^nd r