K M SUMATHI Vs. M A JEYA RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE criminal revision petitioner has challenged the common order dated 24.03.2005, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.947 and 944 of 2005 in Calendar Case No.22 of 2005, by the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.

(2.) THE revision petitioner as petitioner has filed two criminal miscellaneous petitions with specific prayers to issue summons to the Vice Chancellor of Gandhigram University, Dindigul and include him as second accused for the offences committed under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998. THE trial Court after considering the allegations made in the petitions as well as the averments made in the counter has come to the conclusion that the prayer of the complainant/revision petitioner is barred by limitation and ultimately dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition Nos.947 and 944 of 2005.

(3.) BEFORE analysing the divergent submissions made by either counsel, the Court has to look into Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 wherein it reads as follows;