SEEMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. registered in Crime No. 1007 of 2011 on the file of 1 st respondent police for the alleged offence under Secs. 417, 420, 354, 376, 506(1) r/w Sec.4 of TNPHW Act.

(2.) The case of prosecution is that the 2nd respondent faced a family problem from her sister's house and also a dispute in film industry. Therefore, she was directed to meet the petitioner. Even before that, the 2nd respondent had acted in a movie directed by the petitioner. Therefore, the 2nd respondent and her family members met the petitioner in his office and as such, the 2nd respondent had acquaintance with the petitioner and had relationship. The petitioner assured that he will marry her and solve the entire issues. While being so, the petitioner compelled the 2nd respondent to have sexual intercourse and he also assured that he will marry her. Whenever the petitioner visited at Madurai, the 2nd respondent was asked to stay with him, at the same time, whenever the 2nd respondent visited Chennai the petitioner avoided to meet her. When the 2nd respondent and her family members approached the petitioner to get marry her, he had threatened them with dire consequences and she was not allowed to meet him. Hence, the complaint. On receipt of complaint, the 1st respondent registered the F.I.R. in Crime No.1007 of 2011 for the offences under Sec.417, 420, 354, 376, 506(i) of I.P.C. r/w Sec.4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

(3.) Mr.R.John Sathyan, learned senior counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a leader of political party and he is an actor and Director of Tamil films. In order to damage his fame in the society, a false complaint has been foisted as against the petitioner. Though the 1st respondent registered the F.I.R., thereafter, the 2nd respondent by her letter dtd. 9/8/2012 addressed to the 1st respondent, thereby she sought for permission to withdraw her complaint on the ground that matter has been amicably settled between them. Once again, in the year 2023, the 2 nd respondent had preferred a new complaint with false allegations. Therefore, the 1st respondent issued summons to the petitioner on 8/9/2023 for enquiry. The petitioner appeared and stated that already the complaint was closed after receipt of withdrawal letter from the 2nd respondent, but the earlier withdrawal letter was suppressed by the 2nd respondent and she wanted to proceed further. After investigation, once again, the 2nd respondent submitted a letter for withdrawal of complaint on 19/9/2023. Even then, the 1st respondent proceeding with the investigation. The F.I.R. is pending from the year 2011 and as such, after the period of 13 years, it cannot be proceeded further and it is liable to be quashed. The learned senior counsel would further submit that even assuming that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the 2nd respondent, it was only consensual sex and the 2nd respondent is not a rustic lady to believe the words uttered by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent failed in her profession and as such a false complaint has been foisted against him. When there is a consensual sex between two adults, no offence is made out under Sec.376 of I.P.C. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. (Crl) No. 2793 of 2024 in the case of Prashant vs. State of NCT of Delhi dtd. 20/11/2024, in which the Apex Court held as follows :-