Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1446 (MAD)

Divyasri v. M. Sathish

2018-04-13

P.N.PRAKASH

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed to call for the records of the proceedings in C.C.No.79 of 2017, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I Court No.1 at Thiruvallur, and to quash the same as illegal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name. 3. Sathish is a practising Advocate in Tiruvallur District and Divyasri is a Revenue Divisional Officer of Tiruvallur District. It is the case of Sathish that on 15.05.2017, he went along with his client Venkatesan to help him get Birth Certificate for his child to the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur; that while he was waiting in the RDO Office, Divyasri questioned him as to the purpose of his visit and when he told her the purpose of his visit, she is said to have asked him in Tamil, "Who are you? Are you an Advocate? Show me your Identity card. You studied in which College? Just because you are an Advocate, do you have horns?" Therefore, Sathish filed a private complaint in C.C.No.79 of 2017 for offences under Sections 294(b), 166, 504 and 500 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvallur for quashing which, Divyasri is before this Court. 4. Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for Divyasri and Mr.Mohanakrishnan, learned counsel for Sathish. 5. Learned counsel for Divyasri submitted that Sathish did come to the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer on 15.05.2017, but misbehaved with Divyasri by abusing her, for which, on the complaint of Divyasri, the Tiruvallur Police have registered a case in Cr.No.424 of 2017 on 15.05.2017 for the offences under Sections 294, 353, 506(1) and Section 4 of Women Harassment Act against Sathish. As a counter blast, Sathish has lodged the present private complaint making false allegations against Divyasri. He also submitted that without obtaining the sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., the trial court ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence. 6. Refuting the contentions, learned counsel for Sathish submitted that it was Divyasri who had abused him and therefore, for prosecuting her, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not required as no protection is available to a public servant for abusing a commoner. He submitted that when the complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the same should not be quashed. 7. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 8. He submitted that when the complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the same should not be quashed. 7. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 8. At the outset, it should be borne in mind that Sathish is not an ordinary commoner, but a practising Advocate on the criminal side in the local bar. In respect of the incident that is said to have occurred on 15.05.2017, there are two versions, viz., one by Divyasri and the other by Sathish. Here, the conduct of the parties becomes relevant. 9. According to Divyasri, 15.05.2017, being Monday, was Public Grievance Day. Sathish came to her Office on 15.05.2017 at 1.00 p.m., when Divyasri was in the midst of hearing public grievances. He gave a representation seeking Birth Certificate for the son of his client Venkatesh. The manner in which he was sitting was unbecoming of an Advocate and therefore, she asked him for his credientials. He is said to have abused her publicly in choicest epithets. Therefore, on the same day, she has lodged a complaint, based on which, FIR was registered against Sathish on 16.05.2017 and the Press who were available, got wind of it and published this as a news item on 17.05.2017. Thus, the conduct of Divyasri in the given circumstances was natural. 10. According to Sathish, for no rhyme or reason, Divyasri abused him in the words referred to in his private complaint. Admittedly, Sathish gave a complaint against Divyasri to the District Collector only on 17.05.2017, after the Press reported the incident. This conduct of Sathish does make his contention doubtful, because had Divyasri abused him on 15.05.2017, the first thing he would have done as a lawyer is, he would have complained to the District Collector. Instead, he has chosen to give the compliant to the District Collector only on 17.05.2017. Even if we were to give the benefit of doubt to Sathish, a reading of the statements of the three witnesses recorded by the Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C. are so parrot-like that, they do not inspire the confidence of this Court. 11. Instead, he has chosen to give the compliant to the District Collector only on 17.05.2017. Even if we were to give the benefit of doubt to Sathish, a reading of the statements of the three witnesses recorded by the Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C. are so parrot-like that, they do not inspire the confidence of this Court. 11. This Court does not want to dwell upon the need or otherwise of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., because on the very facts of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution in C.C.No.79 of 2017 launched by Sathish against Divyasri is an abuse of process of law and is a counter blast to the FIR that has been registered against him in Cr.No.424 of 2017. In the result, this petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.79 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I at Thiruvallur are quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.