BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 09.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2978 of 2024

1.Veerappan

2.Krishnan

3.Sethulakshmi

4.Kayalvizhi ... Petitioners

Vs.

1.State rep. by

The Inspector of Police,

Vaiyapatti Police Station,

Trichy District.

(Crime No.6 of 2018)

2.Chithra ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the F.I.R. in Crime No.6 of 2018 on the file of the 1^st respondent police and quash the same as illegal insofar as the petitioners are

concerned.

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Leninkumar,

Advocate

For R1 : Mr.Thanga Aravindh.B,

Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

For R2 : Mr.G.Karnan, Advocate ORDER Seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.6 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police, this Criminal Original Petition has been filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.01.2018, at about 11.00 p.m., upon hearing a knock on the door, the de-facto complainant opened the door, whereupon the first petitioner allegedly conversed with her in an unparliamentary manner using sexually coloured words. Reacting to his behaviour, when the de-facto complainant screamed, the first petitioner ran away from the spot. Thereafter, on the very next day, at about 3.00 p.m., all the petitioners allegedly again frequented the de-facto complainant’s house and attacked her with a knife and sticks, causing injuries on her hand and back, as a result of which she fell down and was admitted to Manapparai Government Hospital. Consequently, a First Information Report in Crime No.6 of 2018 came to be registered for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 354, and 448 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire narrative of the de-facto complainant is false and imaginary, and that owing to previous enmity arising out of a pending civil suit in O.S.No.190 of 2017 instituted by the second and third petitioners against the second respondent on the file of the District Munsif Court, Manapparai, the de-facto complainant has lodged the present false complaint. It was further submitted that, had the allegations been true, there was no reason for the first petitioner to frequent the de-facto complainant’s house again on the very next day along with other family members. All the allegations are alleged to be stage-managed. He further submitted that the fourth petitioner is a law student awaiting enrolment and that, with an intention to spoil the fourth petitioner’s ambition, she has been falsely implicated as an accused in this case.

4. Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), submitted that a plain reading of the First Information Report would itself reveal that the conduct of the petitioners attracts the offences under Sections 323, 324, 354, and 448 of the IPC, and more particularly Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002, thereby making out a clear prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners, and hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned FIR.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. The complaint of the de-facto complainant reveals that the first petitioner allegedly harassed her at 11.00 p.m. on 03.01.2018 and that on 04.01.2018, the respondent police, upon receipt of information from the hospital, recorded her statement and thereafter registered the FIR only on 10.01.2018, i.e., after a delay of seven days, for which no proper explanation has been given in the FIR. Though the case of the de-facto complainant is that she was sexually harassed on 03.01.2018, the alleged attack occurred only on the next day. Further, the FIR does not disclose as to who specifically attacked the de-facto complainant, and the allegation that she was attacked with a knife and stick