ORDER

This criminal revision has been filed against the order of remand dated 08.08.2017 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem in CA.No.6 of 2017 and thereby set aside the order of acquittal passed on 03.12.2016 by the learned Additional Mahila Court, Salem in CC.No.15 of 2013.

2. The petitioner is an accused in crime No.741 of 2012 registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The crux of the complaint is that on 11.08.2012 at about 07.00 p.m., when the victim was proceeding to a temple near Praba Theatre, the respondent herein abused her in filthy languages and also caught hold her and when the victim questioned the act of the accused, he asked her to come alone for his sexual needs and threatened her with dire consequences. Immediately, she shouted and the general public rescued the victim from the accused. The respondent after completion of investigation filed final report for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. However, the trial court framed charges for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC alone. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. On the side of the petitioner, no one was examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court found the petitioner not guilty and acquitted him for the offence under Sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the victim preferred appeal and the appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court and remanded back for the de novo trial for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the prosecution witnesses PW2 and PW3 did not support of the case of the prosecution. Therefore, though the trial court failed to frame charge for the offence under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, the prosecution failed to prove the allegation to bring home the charge for the offence under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Therefore, no purpose would be served by ordering de novo enquiry. In fact, PW2 and PW3 turned hostile and no purpose would be served for de novo enquiry when the PW2 and PW3 turned hostile. The remittance of the matter back to the trial court to frame additional charge for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act afresh would be futile exercise. Further, the remittance of the matter for de novo trial at this distant point of time where the alleged occurrence was said to have taken place in the year 2012 and the sole eye witness failed to support the case of the prosecution, no purpose would be served for de novo enquiry. He further submitted that conviction cannot be set aside for the reason no charge is framed. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kammari Brahmaiah and Others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. reported in (1999) 2 SCC 522.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the victim / first respondent submitted that the trial court failed to frame charge for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act though there are specific allegations to attract the offence under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

Therefore, the appellate court rightly remanded the matter for de novo enquiry since no other option than to remit the matter by the appellate court.

5. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that the appellate court not only remanded the matter for the reason that the trial court failed to frame charges for the offence under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Wome