Santhanaganesh V State 570884

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.
611 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.611 of 2023

and
Crl.M.P.(MD).No.539 of 2023
Santhanaganesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Srivaigundam,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.21 of 2022)
2.Thoppachi Nandhini ...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.21 of
2022 on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the same as
illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
For R-1 : Mr.A.Albert James,

Government Advocate
(Criminal Side)
For R-2 : No Appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.611 of 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.21 of 2022 pending investigation on the file of the first
respondent Police.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the second
respondent had a love affair from the year 2020. on 13.11.2022, the
petitioner called the second respondent and asked her to come to a place.
Both of them were talking from 09.00 p.m. to 12.00 mid night.
Suddenly, the petitioner hugged the second respondent and kissed her.
Thereafter, the second respondent conveyed to her parents about this
relationship and asked the petitioner to marry her. The petitioner refused
to marry the defacto complainant and started avoiding the defacto
complainant. It is under these circumstances, a complaint came to be
given before the first respondent, which resulted in registration of an FIR
for the offence under Section 354-A(1)(i) of IPC.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first
respondent Police. The second respondent has been served with notice
and the name of the second respondent has also been printed in the cause
list. However, there is no appearance either in person or through the
counsel.
2/6
4. The petitioner is aged about twenty years and the defacto
complainant is aged about 19 years. Admittedly, both of them had a love
affair. The specific allegation made in the First Information Report is
that the petitioner and the defacto complainant met in a lonely place and
they were talking from 09.00 p.m. to 12.00 mid night. During this time,
the petitioner is said to have hugged the second respondent and kissed
her. Thereafter, the petitioner refused to marry the defacto complainant.
5. To constitute an offence under Section 354-A(1)(i) of IPC,
a man must commit a physical contact and make advances involving
unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. Even if the allegations are
taken as it is, it is quite natural for two persons in the teenage, who are
having a love affair to hug or kiss each other. By no stretch, this can
constitute an offence under Section 354-A(1)(i) of IPC.
6. In view of the above, no offence has been made out against the
petitioner even if the allegations made in the First Information Report are
taken as it is. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings
against the petitioner will result in abuse of process of law.
7. When the Criminal Original Petition was entertained by this
Court, the respondent Police was specifically directed not to file a final
3/6
report. However, the respondent Police has completed investigation and
filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Srivaigundam, which has been taken on file in C.C.No.70 of 2024. It is
now well settled that even where the quash petition is filed to quash the
First Information Report and a final report is filed, which is taken
cognizance, this Court can still exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings itself, if a case is made out.
8. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings
pending on the file of the competent Court.
9. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.70
of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Srivaigundam,
is hereby quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed
accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.11.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
TSG
4/6
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Srivaigundam.
2.The Inspector of Police,

All Women Police Station,
Srivaigundam,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
N.ANAND VENKATESH. J.
TSG
04.11.2024
6/6

Santhanaganesh V State 570884

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santhanaganesh V State 570884

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santhanaganesh V State 570884

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.611 of 2023

Santhanaganesh ... Petitioner

2.Thoppachi Nandhini ...Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian

For R-1 : Mr.A.Albert James,

For R-2 : No Appearance

Crime No.21 of 2022 pending investigation on the file of the first

Thereafter, the second respondent conveyed to her parents about this

to marry the defacto complainant and started avoiding the defacto

complainant. It is under these circumstances, a complaint came to be

given before the first respondent, which resulted in registration of an FIR

for the offence under Section 354-A(1)(i) of IPC.

learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first

list. However, there is no appearance either in person or through the

4. The petitioner is aged about twenty years and the defacto

complainant is aged about 19 years. Admittedly, both of them had a love

affair. The specific allegation made in the First Information Report is

her. Thereafter, the petitioner refused to marry the defacto complainant.

5. To constitute an offence under Section 354-A(1)(i) of IPC,

a man must commit a physical contact and make advances involving

unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. Even if the allegations are

constitute an offence under Section 354-A(1)(i) of IPC.

taken as it is. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings

against the petitioner will result in abuse of process of law.

7. When the Criminal Original Petition was entertained by this

report. However, the respondent Police has completed investigation and

filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,

Srivaigundam, which has been taken on file in C.C.No.70 of 2024. It is

First Information Report and a final report is filed, which is taken

of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings itself, if a case is made out.

8. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to exercise its

jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings

pending on the file of the competent Court.

9. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.70

of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Srivaigundam,

is hereby quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed

accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

2.The Inspector of Police,

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

You might also like