Dismissed

S.Sooryarajan v. the State, Rep by Its

Madras HC12 Feb 2019CRL OP/729/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR alleging offences under the IT Act and TN Prohibition of Harassment Act was dismissed. The Court held the FIR requires detailed investigation and the prayer cannot be entertained at this stage.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. The appeal for quashing the FIR was dismissed, and the FIR needs to be investigated in detail.

S.Sooryarajan Vs the State, Rep by Its — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

CORAM :

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶4

Crl.O.P.No.729 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.460 of 2019

¶5

1.Mr.S.Sooryarajan
S/o.Mr.G.N.Sellathurai.
2.Mrs.S.Gajalakshmi,
W/o.Mr.G.N.Sellathurai. ..Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
S-6,Sankar Nagar Police Station,
Chennai District.
(Crime No.949 of 2018)
2.Ms.S.Dhanalakshmi
D/o.Shanmugasundaram. ..Respondents

¶6

PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report registered in Crime No.949 of 2018 by the respondent as against the petitioners and quash the same.

¶7

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Ravikumar

¶8

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. registered in Crime No.949 of 2018 on the file of the 1^st respondent police for the offences registered under Section 67 of Information Technology Act 2000 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002.

¶9

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

¶10

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶11

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no offences are made out as against these petitioners and absolutely there are no ingredients to attract the offence as against these petitioners. He further submitted that insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 would not attract, since the definition of the word “Harassment” is gender specific and “Harassment” means any indecent conduct or act by a man which causes or is likely to cause intimidation, fear, shame or embarrassment, including abusing or causing hurt or nuisance or assault or use of force. Therefore, he sought for quashing the F.I.R.

¶12

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that these petitioners have committed very serious offence. The 1^st petitioner has cheated the defacto complainant by snatching her gold chain under the cover of love and also blackmailed her and posted her photographs in the social media. When the defacto complainant questioned the same, he threatened her with dire consequences along with the second petitioner/mother. Therefore, the allegations made in the F.I.R. are liable to be investigated further. Hence, he seek to dismiss the petition.

¶13

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the F.I.R. needs to be investigated in detail and the prayer sought for by the petitioners cannot be entertained at this stage. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶14

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶15

rri/rm

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

1.The Inspector of Police,
S-6,Sankar Nagar Police Station,
Chennai District.
(Crime No.949 of 2018)
2.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.TR.Udayakumar, Advocate SR.No.13215
+1cc to Mr.M.Ravikumar, Advocate SR.No.13583
Crl.O.P.No.729 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.460 of 2019
KJI(CO)
GMY(14/03/2019)

¶19

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

S.Sooryarajan v. the State, Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sooryarajan v. the State, Rep by Its

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

Mr.M.Raj Kumar Vs T.Arunachalam

S.Ganesh Vs the State Rep by

S.Ragupathy Vs State by

Mohammed Kasim Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Rajkumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Amala Vs the Inspector of Police