Allowed

K.Ramesh Babu v. State Rep. by

Madras HC20 Apr 2023CRL OP/31199/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed a final report alleging offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act 2002. The Court held that since the maximum punishment for the offences involving the Prevention of Women Harassment Act was three years, the report filed more than three years after the

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was allowed; the final report was quashed; and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.

K.Ramesh Babu Vs State Rep. by — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.31199 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.31199 of 2019

¶7

and Crl.M.P.Nos.17013 & 17014 of 2019

¶8

1.K.Remesh Babu

¶9

2.Sheela ... Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, N-3, Muthialpet Police Station, Chennai-1.

¶12

Shanthi

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records in respect of the case in C.C.No.1646 of 2019 on the file of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Geogre Town, Chennai and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioners : M/s.D.Rajagopal

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran, Addl. Public Prosecutor, [R.1] : Mr.J.Stanlin [R.2]

¶17

1/5

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.31199 of 2019

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petition is to quash the final report filed for the offences under Section 341, 294(b), 506(i) IPC & Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act 2002.

¶22

It is alleged in the final report that the petitioners and the 2nd

¶23

respondent are neighbours; that the petitioners abused the 2nd respondent in filthy language.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations would not constitute any of the offences alleged. In any event, the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is only 3 years and hence the impugned final report which is filed on 09.08.2019 for the alleged occurrence that took place on 17.12.2015 is barred by limitation; and that the respondent had not filed any application for extension of period of limitation under Section 473 Cr.P.C. as well.

¶25

The learned counsel for the de facto complainant would submit

¶26

that there are materials in the final report to suggest that the petitioners are

¶27

2/5

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.31199 of 2019

¶30

guilty of the offences alleged; that the de facto complainant had lodged the complaint immediately after the petitioners had abused her in filthy language and hence prayed for the dismissal of this quash petition.

¶31

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor reiterated the submission

¶32

made by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant and prayed for the dismissal of this quash petition.

¶33

This Court on perusal of the impugned final report finds that the alleged occurrence took place on 17.12.2015. The offences alleged in the final report are under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(i) IPC & Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act 2002. The maximum sentence for the offence is provided in Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act 2002, which is 3 years. The other offences are punishable with a lesser term of imprisonment. Hence, the impugned final report which has been filed beyond the period of 3 years is barred by limitation. Hence, this Court is inclined to quash the final report.

¶34

3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.31199 of 2019

¶36

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.

¶37

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶38

20.04.2023

¶39

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No shr

¶40

¶41

The Inspector of Police, N-3, Muthialpet Police Station, Chennai-1.

¶42

2.The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

¶43

4/5

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

Crl.O.P.No.31199 of 2019

¶46

SUNDER MOHAN. J,

¶47

shr

¶48

Crl.O.P.No.31199 of 2019 and Crl.M.P. Nos.17013 & 17014 of 2019

¶49

20.04.2023

¶50

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Ramesh Babu v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ramesh Babu 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

Jothilingam Vs the State Rep.by

Selvam Vs the Inspector of Police

Gunasekaran Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

T.P.K.Murugan Vs State Rep by

Syed Imthiaz Ahamed Vs the State by

K.M.Palanisamy Vs the State Represented by