2017 (7) TMI 1383 - HC - Indian Laws

Harassment - main contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner in this case is that the de-facto complaint in her statement under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C has admitted that she has given the complaint by exaggerating the incident - HELD THAT - Having regard to the position that the petitioner's case is purely on factual aspects, this Court finds no reason to quash the criminal case. The Criminal Original petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition to quash the charge-sheet in a criminal case under various sections of IPC and Acts.
2. Validity of the complaint and allegations made by the de-facto complainant.
3. Allegations of false complaint due to a dispute in a civil court.
4. Application of the Bhajanlal case in the current scenario.
5. Dismissal of the criminal original petition and related miscellaneous petitions.
6. Dispensation of the personal appearance of the Petitioner before the Court below.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash the charge-sheet in a case involving sections 294(b), 352, 447, 506(i) of IPC, Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1984, and Section 4 of Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002.

2. The contention raised by the petitioner's counsel was that the de-facto complaint admitted to exaggerating the incident in her statement under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. The complaint mentioned being beaten up by an iron rod, which was later found to be exaggerated. However, the other allegations made by the complainant were deemed intact by the police, leading to the charge-sheet being filed.

3. Another argument presented was that the false complaint might have stemmed from a dispute between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant in a civil court case pending before the III Additional Sub-Court, Usilampatti.

4. The petitioner's counsel referenced the Bhajanlal case (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) to argue that the current case should be quashed. However, the court found that the petitioner's case was based on factual aspects, and hence, the application of the Bhajanlal case was not accepted.

5. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition along with the connected Miscellaneous Petitions.

6. Despite the dismissal, the court, considering the nature of allegations and the ongoing civil suit, decided to dispense with the personal appearance of the Petitioner before the Court below unless specifically required by the Court.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key issues raised in the judgment and the court's decision regarding each matter, preserving the legal nuances and significant details from the original text.