Allowed

Dr.P.Gokulakrishnan, v. State Rep. by

Madras HC15 Nov 2018CRL OP/168/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner insofar as allegations attracted Sections 294, 353, and 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Women Harassment Act, holding that telephonic obscenity and mere words did not meet statutory requirements, while permitting the case to continue against other accused. The court directed the lower court to complete proceedings within three months.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No. 124 of 2016 quashed against the petitioner; case to continue against other accused within three months.

Dr.P.Gokulakrishnan, Vs State Rep. by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.11.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.168 of 2017

¶6

and Crl.M.P.Nos.128 & 129 of 2017

¶7

Dr.P.Gokulakrishnan,
S/o.Perumal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police,
B-1, Town Police Station,
Salem City
(FIR No.356 of 2015)
2.Dr.D.Anuradha,
District Admin. Officer,
District Food Safety Office,
Old Nattamai Building Complex,
Salem-1. ...Respondents
(Impleaded the 2 nd respondent as per
the order of this Court dated 27.01.2017
in Crl.M.P.No.875 of 2017).
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C, to call for all the records in C.C.124 of 2016 on the
file of Additional Mahila Court, Salem and quash the same
insofar as the petitioner is concerned by invoking the inherent
jurisdiction u/s.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶8

For Petitioner : M/s.M.Vijay Anand
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz (for R1)
Additional Public Prosecutor

¶9

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings in C.C.No.124 of 2016, pending on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Salem.

¶10

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

¶11

2.The petitioner has been added as A3 in the final report. Initially an F.I.R. was registered by the respondent Police in which the name of this petitioner was not found. Thereafter, the respondent Police investigated the case and filed a final report, wherein this petitioner was added as 3^rd accused.

¶12

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the final report has been taken cognizance by the Court below for the offence under Sections 294, 353, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of the Women Harassment Act. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court, the relevant portion of the statement given by the defacto complainant before the respondent Police and the same is extracted hereunder:

¶13

“mjd;gpwFk; mth; tplhky; ,uz;LK :d ;W Kiw bjhlh;e ;J vdf;F nghd; bra;J fhJ bfhLj;J nfl;f Koahj bfl;l thh;j ;ijfshy; jpl;odhh;. mjd;gpwF mtuJ fk;bgdpapy; ,Ue;J czt[ gFg;gha;t [f ;F mDg;gpitf;fg ;gl ;oUe ;j ghdk; bey;ypf ;fha; rhw;wpid Ma;t [ bra;J mwpf;if mDg;gpitj;jpUe;j gFg;gha;thsh;/ bkw;go Ma;t [ mwpf;ifapy; ,e;j bey;ypf;fha; rhW ghdk; (Unsafe) ghJfhg;gw ;wJ/ kw;Wk ; (Sub standard) juk; Fiwe;jJ kw;Wk ; (Mis Branded) jg;g [f ; FwpaPL vd bjhptpj;jpUe;jdh;/ ,e;j mwpf;ifapd; mog;gilapy; fle;j 14/09/2015k;njjp Baanam Amla Health drink bey;ypf;fha; rhW ghdk; cw;gj ;jp kw;Wk ; tpw;gidia epWj;jp Ma;t [ mwpf;ifapy; Fwpg;gpl ;Ls ;s FiwghLfis rhpbra;J 15 ehl;fSf;Fs ; Ma;twpf;if rkh;gpf;f mwpt[wpj;jp nehl;lP!; mDg;gp ,Ue;njd;/ ,jd; gpwF nkw;go tpz;! ;lhh; rptf;Fkhh; mtuJ brhe;j TV neuiyapy; vd;Dila ew;bgaUf;Fk ; gjtpf;Fk ; fy';fk ; tpistpf;Fk ; tifapy; mtJhuhd bra;jpfis gug;gpte;jJld; 18/09/2015e; njjp kPz;Lk ; vdJ bry; nghdpy; bjhlh;g [ bfhz;l tpz;! ;lhh; rptf;Fkhh; ehd; mt;thW brhy;ypapUe;Jk ; vdf;nf nehl;O! ; mDg;gpwah rPf;fpuj;Jy ehd; ahUd;D cdf;F fhl;Lnwd;D kpul ;ol ;L nghid fl;gz ;zpl ;lhh;/ mjd;gpwF brd;w 19/09/2015e; njjpnah 20/09/2015e; njjpnah rhpahf "hgfk; ; ,y;iy. 9500503000 vd;w vz;zpy ; ,Ue;J vdJ bry; nghdpw;F bjhlh;g

¶14

[ bfhz;legh; ehd; tpz;! ;lhh ; rptf;Fkhh;nuhl gpuz;l ; Rnuc&; ngRnwd; nkk;/ eP';f Vd; njitapy;yhk mtu gifr;rpf;fpl ;L , Uf;fp' ;f/ Rk;kh ml;$! ;l ; gz;zp ngh';f c';fSf;F vy;yh trjpfisa[k ; bra;J bfhLf;fr ; brhy;Ynwd;/ Rk;kh tPk;gor;rpfpl;L , Ue;jp' ;fd ;dh njitapy;yhk khd khpahija ,Hg;gnjhl capiua[k ; , Hf;f neUk; vd;W brhy;yp kpul;ol ;L nghid fl;gz ;zpl ;lhh;/ mjd;gpwF mnj bek;ghpy; ,Ue;J nghd; br";r egh; ehd; brhd;dij nahrpr;rp ghj;jp' ;fsh. mg;go ,g;god;D kpul ;odhh;/ md;idf;F

¶15

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

¶16

rha;' ;fhyk ; 5/00 kzpf;F gf;fkh 9843362322 vd;w vz;zpy ; ,Ue;J vz;id bjhlh;g [ bfhz;l egh; ehDk; lhf;lh ; jhk;kh vd;W ngr Muk;gpj;jth; njitapy;yhj bfl;l thh;j ;ijfis vy;yhk ; brhy;yp jpl;o cd;dhy rptf;Fkhiu xd;Dk ; g[L' ;fKoahJ mtU ,g;g epidr;rhTl cd;id Xd; Mgprpnyna te;J Jhf;fpLthU xG';fh , Ue;Jf ;f vd;W kpul;odhh;/ mjdhy; kpFe;j kd cisr;rYf;F Mshd ehd; rl;lg ;go nkw;go egh;fs ;kPJ eltof;if vLf;f ntz;o fhty; Jiw cah; mjpfhhpfis re;jpj;J ele;j tptu';fis brhy;yp mth;fspd; tHpfhl;Ljypd; nghpy; nryk; lt[d ; fhty; Ma;thsUf;F xU g[fhh; fojk; 30/09/2015 e;njjp khiy vdJ thfd Xl;Leh; K:ykhf mDg;gpitj;jpUe;njd;/ vdJ g[fhhpd; nghpy; tHf;F gjpt[ bra;j fhty; Ma;thsh; mth;fs ; ,d;W 01/10/2015e;njjp vdJ mYtsfj;jpw ;F te;J vd;id tprhhpj;jPh;fs ;. ehd; ele;j tptu';fis j';fsplk; bjhptpj;jpUe;njd;/ ehd; g[fhhpy; mth;fs ; nghdpy; kpul;ly ; tpLj;J Mghrkhf ngrpa ehl;fs ; epidtpy;yhky; bjhptpj;jpUe;njd;/@

¶17

4.In view of the above statement given by the defacto complainant, the petitioner has also been added as an accused in this case. Apart from the above statement, no other material is available as against the petitioner.

¶18

5.The second respondent has been served and her name has also been printed in the Cause List. However, there is no representation for the second respondent.

¶19

6.The only issue that has to be examined by this Court is whether the averments that has been extracted herein above will attract the offence under Sections 294, 353, 506(ii) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Women Harassment Act.

¶20

7.Admittedly, obscene words had been uttered over phone and not in any public place or in a public view. Therefore, the allegations does not attract the provisions of Section 294b of IPC and Section 4 of Women Harassment Act. Insofar as Section 506(ii) of IPC is concerned, it is well settled that mere utterance of words are not enough to attract the offence of criminal intimidation and the same does not satisfy the requirements of

¶21

Section 506 of IPC. Therefore, the allegations made against the petitioner, does not make out a case under Section 506(ii) of IPC. Insofar as the offence under Section 353 is concerned, this Court does not find that the allegations made against the petitioner will amount to criminal offence under Section 350 or assault under Section 351 and therefore, when these two vital

¶22

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

¶23

ingredients are not satisfied, automatically the provision under Section 353 of IPC will not have any application in the present case. Therefore, the charge under Section 353 of IPC is also liable to be quashed.

¶24

8.In view of the above, this Court interferes with the proceedings pending before the Additional Mahila Court, Salem, in C.C.No.124 of 2016, insofar as this petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.124 of 2016 i quashed insofar as this petitioner is concerned. It is made clear that the proceedings can go on insofar as the other accused persons are concerned and the Court below shall complete the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶25

9.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶26

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rm
To
1. The Additional Mahila Court, Salem
2. The Inspector of Police,
B-1, Town Police Station,
Salem City
(FIR No.356 of 2015)
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.M.Vijayanand, Advocate SR.No.78143
CRL.O.P.No.168 of 2017
SS(CO)
GMY(17/12/2018)

¶27

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

Dr.P.Gokulakrishnan, v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.P.Gokulakrishnan, v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamilarasi Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Sakthivel, Aged 35 Years, Vs Tmt.Jeevitha

Parimala, F/A.31 Years Vs State Rep by

Radhika Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Vighas, Aged 31 Years, Vs the State Rep. by

Lakshmana Sundar Vs D.Aiswarya Npm