Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 3351 (MAD)

R. Sagunthala v. S. Anandha Krishnan

2022-09-16

K.MURALI SHANKAR

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to set aside the docket order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the Special Judge for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli in un-numbered Crl.M.P.No.... of 2019 and to direct the Special Judge for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli to take the complaint of the petitioner in un-numbered Crl.M.P.No..... of 2019, on the file and proceed further in accordance with law.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders for setting aside the docket order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the Special Judge for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act / II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli in un-numbered Crl.M.P.No...... of 2019 and to direct the Special Judge for ST/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, to take the complaint of the petitioner on file and proceed in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner has filed a private complaint against the respondents herein, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as a staff under the control of the accused 1 and 2, that the petitioner was working as a Selection Grade Assistant in the Chettikulam branch of TNSTC, Nagercoil, that the first respondent was the then Assistant Engineer and was in-charge of the post of Branch Manager and that the second respondent was the then General Manager of TNSTC, Nagercoil. 3. The case of the complainant is that the first respondent, under whom she has been working, has been demanding sexual favour from the petitioner by using his official position, that though the petitioner has lodged complaints to the second respondent and the Managing Director, there was no response and that the respondents 1 and 2 had conspired together and suspended the petitioner from service and issued a charge memo by creating and fabricating the charges against her. It is the further case of the complainant that she has then lodged a complaint before the third respondent police and he refused to issue receipt for the complaint and that since the third respondent has also not taken any action, which is required to take under the law, has been arrayed as third respondent. 4. It is the further case of the complainant that she has then lodged a complaint before the third respondent police and he refused to issue receipt for the complaint and that since the third respondent has also not taken any action, which is required to take under the law, has been arrayed as third respondent. 4. It is evident from the records that the Judicial Magistrate has taken the complaint on file as Cr.M.P.5951 of 2017 and posted the matter for recording of sworn statement of the complainant, that the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded on 23.02.2018 and the sworn statements of the witnesses L.W.2 and L.W.4 were recorded on 28.03.2018 and that since the complainant's Counsel has endorsed that they are not having any further witnesses at that stage, the learned Magistrate has adjourned the matter for enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 5. It is further evident that after hearing the complainant's side, the case was reserved for orders and on 23.08.2018, the case was suo motu reopened for clarification and that the complaint was adjourned time and again for enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act cases / II Additional District Judge, on the point of jurisdiction, since the complainant has levelled charges for the offences under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order on 12.07.2019 returning the complaint as the same was barred by limitation and the impugned order is extracted hereunder: “Returned: 12.07.2019 Perused. It has been alleged occurrence occurred in the work spot in the year 2014. The complaint/petition is barred by limitation. Hence, it is returned.” 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner has not acceded for the demand of the first respondent, she was slapped with the suspension order and charge memo was issued, that in the year 2016, the accused committed the offences under Section 3(1)W(II) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the petitioner, for which, the maximum punishment prescribed is 5 years and therefore, the complaint of the petitioner cannot be considered as a complaint barred by the limitation and that therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the order of the return passed by the Special Judge is against the provisions under Section 468 Cr.P.C. 7. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing the complaint averments and further stated that the petitioner has not informed about the drivers licence expiry particulars and she violated the Government rules, that the first respondent sent a report on 01.09.2015, 19.05.2016, 08.06.2016 and 21.12.2016 to the higher officials and based upon the complaint of the first respondent, the petitioner was suspended on 12.01.2017, that till suspension order, the petitioner has not lodged any such complaint before the police, that the petitioner's earlier complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Nagercoil has already been dismissed and that therefore, the petition was filed with ulterior motive and that the Inspector of Police of the concerned police station has properly enquired the case and filed the closing report. 8. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Magistrate, who was dealing with the case earlier, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and other two witnesses, has posted the case for enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., and subsequently, without any such enquiry, he transferred the case to the Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act. It is not known as to whether any enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., was conducted by the learned Special Judge. 9. When the matter was taken up earlier, considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side, this Court directed the Registry to call for the entire case bundle from the concerned Court and in pursuance of the same, the learned Special Judge has submitted a report stating that the entire case bundle in un-registered Crl.M.P.... .. of 2019 has already been returned to the Counsel for the petitioner Sagunthala on 12.07.2019 and acknowledgement was taken from the said Counsel. Subsequently, considering the docket endorsements made by the learned Magistrate that the sworn statements of the complainant and two other witnesses have been recorded, this Court directed the Registry to get the copies of the sworn statements recorded by that Court. Subsequently, considering the docket endorsements made by the learned Magistrate that the sworn statements of the complainant and two other witnesses have been recorded, this Court directed the Registry to get the copies of the sworn statements recorded by that Court. But the learned II Additional District Judge has submitted a report dated 01.06.2022 stating that no sworn statement was recorded before II Additional District Court (PCR), Tirunelveli and it seems that the sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses were recorded before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil. 10. Whatever it is, the learned Special Judge has neither conducted any enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., nor passed any orders either under Section 203 Cr.P.C., or under Section 204 Cr.P.C., But on the other hand, the learned Special Judge has returned the complaint by stating that the complaint is barred by limitation. No doubt, the petitioner has alleged that the first respondent had committed the offences punishable under Section 354, 509 and 182 I.P.C., and under Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, that the second respondent had committed the offences punishable under Section 120A and 187 I.P.C., and under Section 10(A)(1) of PCR Act and that the third accused had committed the offences under Sections 166, 120A I.P.C., and under Section 10(A)(1) of PCR Act. 11. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent all the other offences under I.P.C., would attract punishment upto 3 years, but at the same time, the offence under Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would attract punishment of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but it may extend to 5 years. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Judge, without considering the above aspects in proper perspective, has returned the complaint in a mechanical fashion, by simply alleging that the complaint is barred by limitation. 12. It is seen from the records that the complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court in the year 2017 and the same was ordered to be returned on 12.07.2019 after a lapse of more than two years. Since the offence alleged in the complaint attracts punishment of imprisonment upto 5 years, the question of limitation does not arise at all. 13. Since the offence alleged in the complaint attracts punishment of imprisonment upto 5 years, the question of limitation does not arise at all. 13. Considering the above, the impugned order of return endorsement dated 12.07.2019 made by the learned II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli is not good in law and the same is liable to be set aside. The petitioner is directed to represent the complaint before the Special Court and on such representation, the learned Judge is directed to conduct fresh enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., and to pass orders in accordance with law. Registry is directed to return the original complaint filed along with this Original Petition to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.