Allowed

K.R.Suresh v. State by

Madras HC24 Apr 2023CRL OP/5582/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed a charge sheet under Sections 294(b), 353, 506(ii) IPC, and the Women Harassment Act. Relying on a previous order quashing proceedings against a co-accused for the same facts involving obscene phone calls, the court held that the allegations did not constitute an offence under the cited provisions, even if admitted true.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition to quash the charge sheet was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

K.R.Suresh Vs State by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.5582 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24.04.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.5582 of 2021

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.M.P.Nos.3609 & 3610 of 2021

¶9

K.R.Suresh ...Petitioner / 2^nd Accused

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

1.State by The Inspector of Police, Salem Town Police Station, Salem & District. (Crime No.356 of 2015) .. 1^st respondent / Complainant

¶12

2.Dr.D.Anuradha, District Admin Officer, District Food Safety Office, Old Nattamai Building Complex, Salem -1. ... 2^nd respondent / De-facto Complainant

¶13

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records pertaining to C.C.No.124 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Salem, and to quash the same.

¶14

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

¶15

1/7

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.5582 of 2021

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumarasamy For R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : No appearance

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petition is to quash the charge sheet on the file of Additional Mahila Court, Salem for the alleged offences under Sections 294 (b), 353, 506(ii) IPC & Section 4 of the Women Harassment Act.

¶20

2.It is alleged in the final report that the petitioner/A2 along with A1 and A3 had called the second respondent over phone and abused her in filthy language. It is further stated that the second respondent/District Nominating Officer of the Food Safety office had inspected the premises of A1 on 13.08.2015 and found that there were some substandard drinks had kept in the premises; that as a result, on 02.09.2015, the petitioner along with other accused had called the second respondent and had abused her in filthy language.

¶21

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

¶22

2/7

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.5582 of 2021

¶24

Mr.B.Kumarsamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶25

submitted that the allegations in the impugned final report does not attract the offences alleged. He further submitted that this Court on the petition filed by A3 had quashed the proceedings stating that the allegations do not attract the offences alleged in the complaint. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the charge sheet.

¶26

Mr.A.Damodaran, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it is true that on the petition filed by the third accused, this Court had quashed the final report insofar as the third accused is concerned. However, the petitioner’s role is different from the role played by the third accused. Hence, that order will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the quash petition.

¶27

Though notice was served on the second respondent, none has

¶28

entered appearance on behalf of her.

¶29

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

¶30

3/7

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.5582 of 2021

¶32

This Court on a perusal of the impugned final report finds that the allegations that the petitioner along with other accused had called the defacto complainant over phone and abused her. This Court on the petition filed by A3 had quashed the proceedings stating that the allegations do not attract the offences alleged in the complaint. The observations made by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.168 of 2017 while quashing the proceedings against A3 reads as follows:-

¶33

“ 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.

¶34

7. Admittedly, obscene words had been uttered over phone and not in any public or in a public view. Therefore, the allegations does not attract the provisions of Section 294 b of IPC and Section 4 of Women Harassment Act. Insofar as Section 506(ii) 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 requirement of 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

¶35

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

¶36

4/7

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.5582 of 2021

¶38

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 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.”

¶39

This Court finds that the observations made by this Court while

¶40

quashing the proceedings against A3 squarely apply to the petitioner/A2 as well. This Court found that even if all the allegations are accepted to be true, the offences are not made out. Hence, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A2 for the very same reasons given by this Court for quashing the proceedings against A3.

¶41

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.

¶42

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶43

24.04.2023

¶44

smv

¶45

Index : Yes/No Speaking order: Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No

¶46

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

¶47

5/7

¶48

Crl.O.P.No.5582 of 2021

¶49

To,

¶50

1.The Inspector of Police, Salem Town Police Station, Salem & District.

¶51

2.The Additional Mahila Court, Salem.

¶52

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶53

SUNDER MOHAN,J.

¶54

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

¶55

6/7

¶56

Crl.O.P.No.5582 of 2021

¶57

smv

¶58

Crl.O.P.No.5582 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.3609 & 3610 of 2021

¶59

24.04.2023

¶60

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

¶61

7/7

K.R.Suresh v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R.Suresh v. State by

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

S.Muralidharan Vs K.v.Suresh Kumar

Dr.Anisa Basheer Khan Vs State Rep.by

Rev.Chandrasekar Vs Chandran John

Nachimuthu Vs the State by

S.Rajapandian Vs Union Territory Rep by

Gnaneshwaran Vs State by