SRINIVASAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, who is as an advocate practicing at Vellore District, has filed this Criminal Original Petition to quash the complaint registered in Cr.NO.9/2006 on file of the Respondent Police.

(2.) THE case of the Prosecution in brief is as follows:-THE complainant one Shanthi, who is the 2nd Respondent herein, lodged a complaint on 18.4.2006 complaining that one Sivakumar had promised to marry her and had sexual relationship with her, but refused to marry her at the instigation of his brother Jayasimhan. Apprehending arrest, Jayasimhan and Sivakumar had moved for anticipatory bail in Cr.MP.No.3647/2006 and when it came up before the Sessions Court at Vellore, as the Respondent Police made an endorsement that the complainant's petition was closed after enquiry, the said petition for anticipatory bail was closed.

(3.) MR.A.Sankarasubbu, the learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that even if the allegation made in the FIR is taken as it is, it does not attract any offence against the Petitioner under Section 506(i) of IPC and therefore, the FIR as against him is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel in support of his contention relied on the decisions rendered in the cases of Amulya Kumar Behera Vs. Nabaghana Behera alias Nabina and others [1995-Cri.L.J-3559], Noble Mohandass Vs. State [1988-STPL-LE-Crim-12877-MAD] and Tammineedi Bhaskara Rao & Others Vs. State of AP and another [2007-Cri.LJ-1204] that when there is no specific allegation against the Petitioner that he had threatened the complainant with injury to her person, reputation or property, the ingredients of Section 506 of IPC are not attracted and the complaint in so far as the Petitioners are concerned cannot be sustained.