Allowed

S.Arumugam v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC21 Apr 2017CRL OP/19808/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner initiated under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and IPC 417 regarding lecherous SMS messages. The quashing was conditional upon the petitioner paying Rs.50,000 to the State Legal Services Authority.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.210 of 2012 are quashed, provided the petitioner pays Rs.50,000 to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within four weeks.

S.Arumugam Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM

¶4

S.Arumugam ..Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
1.State rep by
Inspector of Police
W-27, All Women Police Station
Vadapalani, Chennai -26
2.Dr.R.Krihtika Datta .. Respondents/Complainant/Defacto
Complainant

¶5

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for records in C.C.No.210 of 2012 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Poonamallee, Chennai and quash the same.

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Krishnamoorthy

¶7

For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz, G.A.(Crl.side) Mr.Arafat Mohammed for R2

¶8

Petitioner seeks quash of proceedings in C.C.No.210 of 2012 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Poonamallee, Chennai.

¶9

Even as we found that the offence alleged against the petitioner viz., Sec.4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 1988 r/w 417 I.P.C would not stand attracted since the allegations against the petitioner are that he sent lecherous messages to the defacto complainant over short messaging service as in the light of judgment of this Court

¶10

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

¶11

reported in Anbazhagan vs. State, 2012 (2) MLJ (Crl) 29, the same would not amount to commission of offence alleged, this Court considered it appropriate to require the presence of petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner is present before this Court.

¶12

This petition is allowed on condition of petitioner paying a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the Tamilnadu State Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of copy of this order. Consequently, proceedings in C.C.No.210 of 2012 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Poonamallee, Chennai is quashed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶13

Post for reporting compliance on 05.06.2017.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate I, Poonamallee,
Chennai
2. Do Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate
Thiruvallur
3. The Inspector of Police
W-27, All Women Police Station
Vadapalani, Chennai -26
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
Copy to
The Secretary
Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority
High Court, Madras
+1 CC to Mr.V. Krishnamoorthy, Advocate sr 24818

¶14

Crl.O.P.No.19808 of 2012

¶15

sp/3/5

¶16

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

S.Arumugam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Arumugam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Rajamani, Vs The Inspector of Police

Iyyammal Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

Vinoth Kumar, Vs Inspector of Police

S.Haridoss, Aged 42 Years, Vs the City Commissioner of

Prabhu @ Bharath Kumar, Vs State Rep. by

Ashok Barathvaj, A/54 Yrs, Vs the State Rep by