Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 9 (MAD)

K. M. Sumathi v. M. A. Jeya Raj

2007-01-01

A.SELVAM

body2007
Judgment :- 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. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended with great vehemence that at the time of occurrence the revision petitioner has served as a research scholar in Gandhigram University and the first respondent has served as her guide and the first respondent has caused various harassment to her and the attitude of the first respondent has been reported to the vice chancellor by name Markandan and he willfully failed to take action against the first respondent and as per Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998, the said Vice Chancellor is liable to be prosecuted, but the second respondent has failed to include him as second accused in C.C.No.22 of 2005. Under the said circumstances, it has become just and necessary to issue summons to the Vice Chancellor and also to include him as second accused in C.C.No.22 of 2005, but without considering the above aspects, the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul has erroneously dismissed the petitions filed by the revision petitioner and therefore, the common order in question is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has also equally contended that the petitions filed by the revision petitioner are totally barred by limitation and only on that ground the petitions in question have been dismissed by the Court below and there is no valid ground to make interference with the same and altogether the present revision case deserves dismissal. 5. 5. 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; "5. Responsibility of Management of any precinct-(1) Any person who is incharge of educational institution, temple or other places of worship, cinema theatre or any other precinct shall, - (a) take such steps as he may deem fit to prevent harassment of woman within the precinct; (b) Ona complaint made by an aggrieved person, give information to the Police about the harassment of woman. (2) Any person who fails to take action under sub-section shall be liable to fine which may extend to two thousand rupees." 6. From the close reading of the provision of the said Section, it is easily discernible that any person who is incharge of educational institution, temple or other places of worship, cinema theatre or any other precinct should take necessary steps to prevent harassment against woman. If there is any failure, the person concerned shall be liable to pay fine which may extend to Rs.2,000/-. 7. It is an admitted fact that on 18.12.1999 the revision petitioner as complainant has lodged a complaint against the first respondent, wherein it has been stated that the problems of the complainant/revision petitioner and one Dr.S.Lakshmi, have been reported to the concerned Vice Chancellor on several occasions and he has failed to take appropriate action. Therefore, the failure of the concerned Vice Chancellor would clearly come within the purview of Section 5 of the said Act. 8. This Court has perused the common order passed by the Court below and found that the petitions filed by the revision petitioner have been dismissed mainly on the ground of limitation. On the basis of complaint given by the revision petitioner a detailed investigation has been done and a final report has also been filed and the same has been taken on file in C.C.No.22 of 2005. Necessary charges have been framed against the accused concerned. The revision petitioner has filed the present petitions only on 03.03.2005 with specific prayers mentioned supra. The occurrence mentioned in the complaint have taken place in the year 1996 and in the year 1999. As per Section 5 of the said Act, the concerned accused shall be punished only with fine which may extend to Rs.2000/-. 9. The revision petitioner has filed the present petitions only on 03.03.2005 with specific prayers mentioned supra. The occurrence mentioned in the complaint have taken place in the year 1996 and in the year 1999. As per Section 5 of the said Act, the concerned accused shall be punished only with fine which may extend to Rs.2000/-. 9. At the juncture, it would be more suitable to look into Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein it has been explicitly stated that if any offence is punishable with fine only, the Court must take cognizance of the offence within six months from the date of offence. In the instant case, as mentioned above the occurrences had taken place in the year 1996 and also in the year 1999. The present petitions have been filed only on 03.03.2005. Therefore, it goes without saying that the present petitions are clearly barred by limitation. The present petitions have been filed under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same reads as follows; "473. Extension of period of limitation in certain cases– Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any Court may make cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice." 10. Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be vivisected into two parts, the first part empowers the Court to take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied, on the facts and circumstances of the case the delay has been properly explained. The second part empowers the Court to take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of limitation on the basis of interest of justice even though delay has not been properly explained. 11. Inthe instant case, as stated earlier, no sufficient explanation has been given by the revision petitioner for not filing the petitions in question within the period of limitation. In the complaint, as adverted to earlier, it has been clearly stated that the alleged harassment meted out by the revision petitioner and one Dr.S.Lakshmi have been properly reported to the then Vice Chancellor by name Markandan, but he has failed to take action. In the complaint, as adverted to earlier, it has been clearly stated that the alleged harassment meted out by the revision petitioner and one Dr.S.Lakshmi have been properly reported to the then Vice Chancellor by name Markandan, but he has failed to take action. Therefore, the lapses on the part of the said Vice Chancellor would clearly attract the penal provisions of Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998. Since necessary allegations have been made against the then Vice Chancellor in the complaint itself, in the interest of justice, he can be included as second accused in Calendar Case No.22 of 2005, as per the second limb of Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner holds good and whereas the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent is sans merit. 13. Infine, this revision case is allowed and the common order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.947 & 944 of 2005 in Calendar Case No.22 of 2005 is set aside. The petitions filed therein are allowed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P(MD).No.4088 of 2005 is closed. 14. The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, is directed to proceed against the accused mentioned in the petitions as per law.