V. VASANTH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in C.C.No.19 of 2022, on the file of the Addl.Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same as against the petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaint in this case was given before the Inspector of Police, K3 Police Station, All Women Police Station, Anna Nagar, Chennai. His further submission is that this being a case registered under Ss. 354 C, 506 (i) IPC and Ss. 67, 67A & 67C of Information Technology Act, 2000, only law and order police can register the complaint and not All Women Police Station.

(3.) The next submission is that electronic documents had not been supported by the certificate under Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. In support of his submission that because of faulty registration of FIR and non production of the certificate under Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, prosecution cannot be maintained, he produced the following judgments (1) State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 AIR 604 and (2) Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2010 4 Crimes (SC) 19 for the proposition that every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.