Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1850 (MAD)

G. Manohar Raj v. State

2016-06-08

P.N.PRAKASH

body2016
ORDER : xxx [It may be possible to survive even if burnt by fire; but, survival is not possible for those who offend the great men.] 2. This petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in respect of C.C. No.76 of 2009 dated 31.03.2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Coonoor, the Nilgiris. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent. 4. The facts obtaining in this case are indeed sordid and they amply demonstrate the vulnerability of today's teaching community. 5.1 Ashwin, a student of Class V in Holy Innocents High School, Wellington, the Nilgiris, was found to be very mischievous and ill-behaved and therefore, his teachers had sent for his parents to meet the Principal of the school. On 21.01.2009, the petitioners, who are the parents of Ashwin, came to meet Sister Lily Augustine, the Principal of the school. 5.2 It is alleged by the Principal that the first petitioner had spoken very rudely to her. It is further alleged by her that the first petitioner had told her that he is a leading lawyer in the High Court and that if complaints are made against the conduct of his son, he would close down the school. 5.3 The Principal summoned Ashwin's teachers so that they themselves could explain to the petitioners about Ashwin's behaviour in the classroom. When the teachers, viz., M/s. Shantha Fredrick, Michael Younos, Sister Volga Fernandes and Uma Maheswari approached the Principal's room, the petitioners prevented their entry and the first petitioner started videographing the school teachers in his mobile camera. He also made disparaging remarks about the teachers to the effect that, after all, they get salary only from the fees paid by the parents of students; hence, they are all his servants and that he can close down the school, if he so desires. It is further alleged that the second petitioner also joined the first petitioner in the vilification. 5.4 Irked, the Principal had to report the matter to the police and when the police came, there was a volte face and the petitioners agreed to amicably settle the issues with the school Management, on account of which, the police left the place. It is further alleged that the second petitioner also joined the first petitioner in the vilification. 5.4 Irked, the Principal had to report the matter to the police and when the police came, there was a volte face and the petitioners agreed to amicably settle the issues with the school Management, on account of which, the police left the place. When the Principal requested the first petitioner to return the videographs of school teachers taken by him, her request was not acceded to. Exasperated with the conduct of the petitioners, the Principal lodged a complaint on 06.02.2009 before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Western Region-Coimbatore, based on which, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.31 of 2009 for offences under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 341 IPC against the petitioners. 5.5 After completing the investigation, the police filed a Final Report before the Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor in C.C. No.76 of 2009 against the petitioners herein for the aforestated offences, challenging which, the petitioners are before this Court. 6. It is seen that as a counter-blast, the first petitioner filed a private complaint in C.C. No.80 of 2009 against the Principal of the school, which appears to have been quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P. No.1854 of 2010. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire prosecution is vitiated and that no offence under Section 294(b) or 506(ii), IPC has been made out. He also submitted that the First Information Report has been lodged with a delay of 16 days. 8. It is trite that mere delay in lodging of a complaint to the police, by itself, cannot lead to the inference that a false case has been foisted by the complainant. The delay in registering a complaint has to be viewed in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of each case. 9. In this case, Sister Lily Augustine, the Principal of the school, has no ulterior motive against the petitioners for foisting a false case against them. When the teachers brought to the notice of the Principal about the conduct of the petitioners' son, the petitioners were called to the school to apprise them of the situation, so that they could take remedial measures to set right the things. It is, after all, for the good of their son, the petitioners were called. When the teachers brought to the notice of the Principal about the conduct of the petitioners' son, the petitioners were called to the school to apprise them of the situation, so that they could take remedial measures to set right the things. It is, after all, for the good of their son, the petitioners were called. Instead of giving a patient hearing to what the teachers had to say about their son, the petitioners appear to have flaunted their prowess. 10. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 294(b) or 506(ii), IPC will not be attracted, this Court finds that the epithets used by the first petitioner, as narrated by the Principal and teachers, whose statements have been recorded, prima facie disclose commission of the said offences. That apart, the provisions of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, may also be attracted for videographing the women teachers, notwithstanding their objection. 11. The parents are the first teachers for every child. The child would look at them as its role model and would imbibe their qualities and character. The first petitioner, who belongs to a noble profession, cannot conduct himself in an unbecoming manner and bring disrepute to the legal fraternity. Thiruvalluvar says: On hearing her son's greatness, the happiness of one's mother will be much greater than at the time of his birth. 12. Only if parents inculcate good behaviour and conduct at the formative stage, can their son make them proud by his achievements when he grows up. It is a solemn duty of parents to diligently strive for making their children good citizens. This is their valuable contribution to the society. 13. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, [1992 (Supp.) 1 SCC 335, the Supreme Court, has laid down certain guidelines for quashing the prosecution. The materials collected in this case do not pass muster the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforestated ruling. 14. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed, being devoid of merits. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Since this case is of the year 2009, this Court directs the Trial Court to expeditiously proceed with the trial in accordance with law.