C HARIHARA SUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.244 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Shencottai, Tirunelveli District. He filed this Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, seeking to quash the abovesaid the case, as illegal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that in 2003, the petitioner herein married the second respondent. Out of the wedlock, they were blessed with one male child, by name, Lakshmikanth. After some time, the marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent was dissolved and thereafter, the second respondent married one Santhanam. Thereafter, the said Lakshmikanth is under the care and custody of the second respondent. On 09.04.2012, at 15.00 hours, when the second respondent, the witness - Santhanam and one Lakshmi were standing in the Tea Shop situated in Shencottai Bus Stand, the petitioner herein forcibly taken the said Lakshmikanth with an intention to detain him. When the same was prevented by the second respondent, so, the petitioner abused the second respondent by saying that [1]and thereafter, he confined the said child Lakshmikanth, which constitute the offences punishable under Section 365 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998.

(3.) Now, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner made a submission as the alleged incident had not taken place as stated in the charge sheet. He further added as when the time, which was mentioned in the charge sheet, the child Lakshmikanth was standing in the Tea Shop with the servantmaid. After seeing them, being the natural guardian, the petitioner, as per the request of the child, take him to the house and informed the matter to the second respondent through the Inspector of Police, Chrompet Police Station, Chennai. While things are being so, in order to take revenge, the second respondent lodged a false complaint after the delay of nearly 10 days. If really, the alleged offence had happened as stated by the second respondent, there is no necessity for the petitioner for sending a Telegram to the Inspector of Police, Chrompet Police Station, Chennai. Further, in 2012 itself, the petitioner herein filed a petition before the District Court, Tirunelveli, for custody of the child. Accordingly, the abovesaid facts clearly will prove as the case of the prosecution is a false one and therefore, in order to avoid the abuse of process of law, it is necessary to allow this Criminal Original Petition.