M G SRINIVASAN Vs. MAHESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are accused 1 to 8 in a case pending in P.R.C. No. 11 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor seek quash of proceedings therein. THE first petitioner seeks to quash the F.I.R. pending against him in Cr. No. 19 of 2004 on the file of the second respondent.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case is a false one initiated at the instance of the then District Judge, Ooty. The matter arose out of an infamous affair involving the first petitioner, an advocate the then Judicial Magistrate Coonoor and the then District Judge, Ooty. The matter led to a situation where the members of the bar rose in support of the first petitioner leading to boycott of Court and drawing attention also of the State Bar council. Suffice it to say that the District Judge, subsequently was terminated.

(3.) IN the absence of those documents, considering the bare allegations, that the complainant was subjected to sexual assault in the month of September 2003 appears to be not well founded at present and only after recording the evidence or conducting the investigation, as the case may be, a case, if at all, could be made out and therefore, I am not inclined to give any finding in this regard.". This apart, in the typedset of papers, we find a letter of the first respondent dated 15.10.2004 wherein she has admitted to having caused trouble to the first petitioner both at his office and residence at the instance of some others. The letter dated 03.11.2004 of the brother of the respondent / complainant would also support the stand that the complaint against the first petitioner and others is not a genuine one. We also find from the extract of the 'A' Diary of the concerned Court that right from the period 01.08.2006 to 31.12.2008, the respondent / complainant has not appeared before such Court. The respondent / complainant, despite service, has not appeared or caused appearance before this Court.