ORDER

A practising Advocate, who is now facing trial for fabricating false evidence with an intention to get one A.Sankar and his associate Panimalar conviction for extortion and harassment has filed this Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the case.

2. The facts centres around the objectionable and defamatory material against the petitioner in the social media circulated by a Youtuber followed by demand of ransom to remove the said objectionable material. In this regard, complaint given by this petitioner was registered in Crime No.96 of 2014 by CCB, Chennai for the offence under Sections 384, 506(i), 120 B IPC and 66A of I.T.Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998.

3. Prior to that, almost with the same averments, alleging that no action has been taken on her complaint, the petitioner approached the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, to direct CCB to register a case and investigate against Ms.Panimalar and A.Sankar. The said petition filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., been taken into consideration by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.3967 of 2013. Vide order dated 05.06.2013, the complaint petition was referred to CCB for registration and investigation. Accordingly, a case in Crime No.260 of 2013 against Ms.Panimalar and A.Shankar under Section 199 and 211 IPC and Section 66 A of I.T.Act, and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, was registered.

4. Meanwhile, the conduct of said Shankar posting objectionable material in his website came to the notice of this Court and this Court has directed the CBI to take up the investigation including the complaint given by the petitioner herein. As a result, CBI has taken up the investigation and has found that there is prima facie material in the complaint given by the petitioner regarding objectionable and defamatory content posted in the facebook by Shankar and Panimalar. At the same time, it has been found that the complaint regarding demand of ransom by Sankar over phone found to be a false complaint. Documents and conversation had been fabricated by the petitioner herself in connivance with one Prabhu. During the course of investigation, the said Prabhu had confessed about fabricating false evidence and turned approver.

5. On completion of investigation, the CBI has filed final report. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore has taken the final report on file. Case in which this petitioner is the defacto complainant is assigned C.C.No.8 of 2016. Sankar and others are the accused. This, whereas the case against this petitioner for fabricating false evidence for offence under Sections 193, 211 & 468 r/w.471 IPC, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has taken the final report on file and assigned C.C.No.5061 of 2016. The trial in both the cases are in progress.

6. The present petition by the accused is filed to quash the case against her in Spl.C.C.No.5061 of 2016 on the ground that the offences alleged in the final report does not attract punishment above 7 years. Therefore, the procedure to grant pardon to an accused and take him as an approver is contrary to the procedure laid down under Cr.P.C., and it is opposed to Section 306 Cr.P.C. The evidence of so called approver Prabhu after granting pardon, exercising power under Section 306 IPC for an offence, where the punishment is less than 7 years amounts is abuse of law and will lead to miscarriage of justice.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring Section 306 Cr.P.C., and Sections 193 and 211 of IPC, submitted that the complaint of extortion given to the police for investigation will not fall within the definition of judicial proceedings to attract Sections 193 or 211 IPC. Till the so called fabricated evidence not used in the judicial proceedings, cannot be construed as an evidence at all, unless it is introduced in the course of trial i