Judgment :- 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioners seek quashment of the charge under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. The allegation found in the Complaint is that all the three petitioners harassed the de facto complainant at her matrimonial home. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Sections 2(a), 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 would submit that no offence is made out as against the petitioners as per Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. He would further submit that there cannot be any such offence of harassment as against a woman under the definition of the said Act. Further, he would submit that as the place of occurrence is allegedly the matrimonial home of the de facto complainant, the provision of the said Act will not apply to such a situation. 4. Learned Government Advocate would submit that all the petitioners have been rightly charged for offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. The word "Harassment" has been defined in the aforesaid Act as “any indecent conduct or act by a man which causes or is likely to case in intimidation, fear, shame or embarrassment, including abusing or causing hurt or nuisance or assault or use of force”. 5. Under Section 3 of the said Act harassment of woman at any place is prohibited- No separate punishment has been contemplated for such prohibition adumbrated under Section 3 of the said Act. 6. Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 would read as follows: 4. Penalty for (harassment of woman). - Whoever commits or participates in or abets (harassment of woman) in or within the precincts of any educational institution, temple or other place of worship, bus stop, road, railway station, cinema theatre, park, beach, place of festival, public service vehicle or vessel or any other place shall be punished with imprisonment-for a term which may. extend to three years and with fine which. shall not be less than ten thousand rupees. 7. extend to three years and with fine which. shall not be less than ten thousand rupees. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the phrase "or any other place" found in Section 4 of the Act, would submit that the said phrase will have to be read in consonance with the places mentioned in the foregoing phrases in the Section. He also referred to the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Kempaiah, 1998 Crl.L.J. 4070, wherein it has been held that the phrase "or in any other manner" found in the definition of Section 2(l) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act (1984) should be read to mean the same kind of things as thus specified in the very sane Section. 8. But in this case, it is round that Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu specifically prohibits of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 Specifically prohibits the harassment of woman in any place in the State of Tamil Nadu is prohibited. When there is no specific punishment 'contemplated for the violation of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition. of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, die-said Section will have to be read along with Section 4 of the said Act which is the compendious Penal -Provision. A conjoint reading of Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act would give the meaning that "at any place" means wherever the occurrence had taken place. If separate punishment has been contemplated for the offence under Section 3 of the Said Act, then as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, "or any other place" found in Section 4 would mean one of the places adumbrated, therein. But here, if we read conjointly both the aforesaid Sections, it will cover the occurrence wherever it takes place. 9. There is a specific allegation of harassment as against the husband as well as the father-in-law by the de facto complainant. Therefore the first accused and the second accused will have to face-trial. The Petition is thus partly allowed. Going by the definition under Section 2(a) of the said Act, there can be no allegation of harassment as against the woman. Therefore the charges as against the mother-in-law (A-3) will have to be quashed. 10. Therefore the first accused and the second accused will have to face-trial. The Petition is thus partly allowed. Going by the definition under Section 2(a) of the said Act, there can be no allegation of harassment as against the woman. Therefore the charges as against the mother-in-law (A-3) will have to be quashed. 10. In the result, the charge under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 as against the mother-in-law (A-3) stands quashed but the Petition seeking quashment of the charge under Section 4 of the said Act as regards A-1 and A-2 stands dismissed. The Petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.