Crl.O.P.(MD)No.709 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 25.01.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.709 of 2022

xxxx

... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police,

Madurai District,

Madurai.

2. The Inspector of Police,

Saptur police station,

Madurai District.

(Crime No.101 of 2019)

3. The Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Investigation Unit for

Crime against Women Wing(IUCAW),

O/o.The Superintendent of Police,

Alagarkovil Road,

Madurai.

... Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482

of Cr.P.C, to directing re-investigation of the criminal case

registered in C.C.No.95 of 2021 on the file of the learned District

Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur in Crime No.101 of 2019 on

the file of the second respondent afresh including Forensic

Laboratory Analysis by transferring the investigation to the third

respondent herein or any other appropriate investigating authority

and further direct the learned District Munsif cum Judicial

Magistrate, Peraiyur to permit the petitioner along with her

Advocates to examine / peruse the Forensic Report attached with

C.C.No.95 of 2021 in Crime No.101 of 2019 to rule-out any

infirmities in the said analysis and further direct the first

respondent to monitor the investigation.

For Petitioner

: Mr.K.R.Laxman

For Respondents

: Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

1/5

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.709 of 2022

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.101

of 2019 registered on the file of the second respondent for the

offences under Sections 354C and 509 of I.P.C. and Section 66E of

the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008.

3. The case of the defacto complainant is that the accused had

video-recorded, when the petitioner and another staff of the

department were taking bath. The petitioner had specifically alleged

that the occurrences had taken place on 28.06.2019 and 29.06.2019 in

the evening and early morning respectively. The accused had kept his

pen camera in his trouser pocket. The second respondent had taken

some two years and two months to file the final report. The

jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences also.

At this stage, this criminal original petition has been filed

seeking denovo investigation and also for entrusting the same

to the third respondent. Since a number of lacunae had been pointed

out in the memorandum of grounds, I called upon the third respondent

to file a status report. The third respondent after a careful

perusal of the entire materials on record, has confirmed almost all

the contentions made by the petitioner. For instance, the original

pen camera was handed over by the petitioner even at the time of

lodging the First Information Report. This has been duly set out in

the First Information Report itself. The investigation officer has

prepared a statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., as if at the time

of recording the said statement, pen camera was handed over to the

Inspector of Police. This according to the petitioner's counsel

would give rise to a doubt as to whether there were two pen cameras.

Actually, there is only one pen camera in which the offending shots

were taken and they were handed over by the petitioner at the time

of lodging the First Information Report itself. According to the

petitioner's counsel, the investigation officer never enquired the

petitioner or recorded her statement and that the statement had been

prepared on his own. This contention of the petitioner's counsel

cannot be brushed aside in view of what has been set out