NANJIL SAMPATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed to quash the First Information Reports registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sec. 354 500, 509 of IPC and Sec. 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002.

(2.) The First Information Reports have been lodged by the defacto complaints who are said to be aggrieved over the alleged statements made by the accused which caused disrespect and also harassment to the leader of a political party Ms.Thamizisai Soundarrajan, presently Governor of Telangana. Thereby, crime has been registered against the petitioner by the Pallavaram Police Station in Crime No.1978 of 2017 for the offences under Sec. 354 and 500 of IPC read with sec. 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. On the same allegations a crime was registered in Crime No. 1509 of 2017 by the Ambattur Estate Police Station for the offences under sec. 504 of IPC and Sec. 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Similarly, a crime was registered in Crime No.2362 of 2017 by Sankarnagar Police Station for the offences under Sec. 354, 500 of IPC and Sec. 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Similarly a Crime was registered in Crime No.550 of 2017 by the Foreshore Estate Police Station for the offences under sec. 354, 500 of IPC and Sec. 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Similarly another crime was registered in Crime No.2522 of 2017 by the Saidapet Police Station for the offences under sec. 500 and 509 of IPC. Similarly another crime was registered in Crime No.1758 of 2017 by Velacherry Police Station for the offences under Sec. 500 of IPC and 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. All these First Information Reports were sought to be quashed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that based on similar allegations multiple First Information Reports have been registered and same is not permissible in the eye of law. It is his further contention that the allegations found in the First Information Reports do not constitute any offence and offences under Sec. 354 and 509 of IPC and Sec. 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act have not been made out. It is his further contention that even for any offence under Sec. Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, the complaint ought to have been lodged only by the aggrieved woman. Therefore, third party has no locus standi to lodge any complaint under the Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and such complaint cannot be investigated. It is his further contention that the police cannot investigate the complaint filed for an offence under sec. 500 of IPC and the Court only can take cognizance on the complaint made by the aggrieved person. Whereas, the leader of the so called political party has not lodged any complaint. Therefore, all the First Information Reports have to be quashed. He also placed reliance on the following judgments to contend that multiple First Information Reports are not permissible in the eye of law :

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent and the defacto complainant submitted that the petitioner is in the habit of making scurrilous allegations with regard to character of the persons and is making unscrupulous allegations against all the political leaders. The allegations in the First Information Reports will clearly constitute an offence which has been perpetrated against women constitutional post and the First information Reports are in the initial stage and the statements recorded by the police authorities will bring forth many facts and these matters requires investigation and the same cannot be quashed.