IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

1. Dalpat Singh S/o.Habtaji, No.2, Ganguraman street, Sowcarpet, Chennai - 600 007.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police(L AND O), C2 Elephant Gate Police Station, Chennai - 600 001.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, prays to call for the records of the case in Crl.A.No.723/2024 dated 17.04.2025 on the file of the learned XVIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in CC.No.12 of 2023 dated 28.08.2024 and set aside the same and pass such further or other orders as deemed fit.

For Petitioner(s): V.Pavel For Respondent(s): Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this Revision to set aside the order passed in Crl.A.No.723/2024 dated 17.04.2025 on the file of the learned XVIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in CC.No.12 of 2023 dated 28.08.2024.

2. Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, the accused has preferred this revision. Before the trial court in C.C. No. 12 of 2023, he was prosecuted for the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 354(A) and 294(b) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Though the charges were denied by the accused, trial was conducted, and upon considering the evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the accused had committed the offences under Sections 354A, 294(b) of IPC and under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women’s Harassment Act and accordingly sentenced him to imprisonment for 3 months simple imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.10,000/-.

3. Challenging the said conviction, the accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No. 723 of 2024. The learned first appellate Judge also confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the courts below, the accused has preferred the present revision.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the facts and circumstances of the case were not properly appreciated by the courts below. He further contended that the accused was in fact detained and harassed by the family members of the defacto complainant, against which the accused had already lodged a complaint. The accused was the first person to approach the police, but his complaint was not considered. On the contrary, in order to escape from the complaint given by the accused, the defacto complainant lodged a false case, which was erroneously accepted by the courts below. He further submitted that the courts failed to take note of the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, including that of the Investigating Officer, which raises serious doubts regarding the fairness of the investigation. Despite such infirmities, the conviction of the accused was sustained, which is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and no independent witness from the public was examined, though the alleged occurrence took place in a public locality. The Investigating Officer failed to examine any independent witnesses or to verify the CCTV footage from the nearby shops. Without proper verification, a false complaint was registered and an improper final report was filed. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it was prayed that the findings of the courts below be set aside and the accused be acquitted of all charges.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), in reply, submitted that on the date of occurrence, the accused abused P.W.1 and P.W.2 in a pub