SUNDARAMOORTHI Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge for SC/ST Act cases, Erode to consider the bail application filed by the petitioner on his surrender in connection with Crime No.213 of 2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent police on the same day.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that one Poomani of Nasiyanyur, lodged a complaint against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, when he demanded repayment of the loan taken by the de facto complaint and her relatives, a false narrative projected as though the petitioner demanded the loan amount by using force and intimidation. It is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner abused the de facto complainant by uttering her caste name and called her to bed. The petitioner submits that these allegations are nothing but a figment of imagination and petitioner never used any such words. On a combined reading of the complaint and the materials, no offence under the SC/ST (prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out. Hence, filed this petition.

(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposing the petitioner's contentions, submitted that the case has been registered against the petitioner for offences under Ss. 296 (b) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sec. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Sec. 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant used to take loan from the petitioner, for herself and for her family members namely Revathi, Vasantha, Thavasiyammal, Sembaal and Radhamani and the total outstanding was Rs.2,91,000.00. Since the de facto complainant had fell from the bike, got injured and immobolised unable to repay the amount, the petitioner went to her residence, threatened her and abused her, on several occassions and he used threatened her over phone. It is further submitted that on 31/10/2025 at about 7.30 p.m, the petitioner called her over phone and threatened her and the de facto complainant produced a CD containing the audio recording of the conversation.