Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 970 (MAD)

Seeman v. State rep. by its Inspector of Police

2025-02-17

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

body2025
ORDER : G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. registered in Crime No. 1007 of 2011 on the file of 1 st respondent police for the alleged offence under Secs. 417, 420, 354, 376, 506(1) r/w Sec.4 of TNPHW Act. 2. The case of prosecution is that the 2 nd respondent faced a family problem from her sister's house and also a dispute in film industry. Therefore, she was directed to meet the petitioner. Even before that, the 2 nd respondent had acted in a movie directed by the petitioner. Therefore, the 2 nd respondent and her family members met the petitioner in his office and as such, the 2 nd respondent had acquaintance with the petitioner and had relationship. The petitioner assured that he will marry her and solve the entire issues. While being so, the petitioner compelled the 2 nd respondent to have sexual intercourse and he also assured that he will marry her. Whenever the petitioner visited at Madurai, the 2 nd respondent was asked to stay with him, at the same time, whenever the 2 nd respondent visited Chennai the petitioner avoided to meet her. When the 2 nd respondent and her family members approached the petitioner to get marry her, he had threatened them with dire consequences and she was not allowed to meet him. Hence, the complaint. On receipt of complaint, the 1 st respondent registered the F.I.R. in Crime No.1007 of 2011 for the offences under Sec.417, 420, 354, 376, 506(i) of I.P.C. r/w Sec.4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act . 3. Mr.R.John Sathyan, learned senior counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a leader of political party and he is an actor and Director of Tamil films. In order to damage his fame in the society, a false complaint has been foisted as against the petitioner. Though the 1 st respondent registered the F.I.R., thereafter, the 2 nd respondent by her letter dated 09.08.2012 addressed to the 1 st respondent, thereby she sought for permission to withdraw her complaint on the ground that matter has been amicably settled between them. Once again, in the year 2023, the 2 nd respondent had preferred a new complaint with false allegations. Therefore, the 1 st respondent issued summons to the petitioner on 08.09.2023 for enquiry. Once again, in the year 2023, the 2 nd respondent had preferred a new complaint with false allegations. Therefore, the 1 st respondent issued summons to the petitioner on 08.09.2023 for enquiry. The petitioner appeared and stated that already the complaint was closed after receipt of withdrawal letter from the 2 nd respondent, but the earlier withdrawal letter was suppressed by the 2 nd respondent and she wanted to proceed further. After investigation, once again, the 2 nd respondent submitted a letter for withdrawal of complaint on 19.09.2023. Even then, the 1 st respondent proceeding with the investigation. The F.I.R. is pending from the year 2011 and as such, after the period of 13 years, it cannot be proceeded further and it is liable to be quashed. The learned senior counsel would further submit that even assuming that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the 2 nd respondent, it was only consensual sex and the 2 nd respondent is not a rustic lady to believe the words uttered by the petitioner. The 2 nd respondent failed in her profession and as such a false complaint has been foisted against him. When there is a consensual sex between two adults, no offence is made out under Sec.376 of I.P.C. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. (Crl) No. 2793 of 2024 in the case of Prashant vs. State of NCT of Delhi dated 20.11.2024, in which the Apex Court held as follows :- “17. In the present case, the issue that had to be addressed by the High Court was whether, assuming all the allegations in the FIR are correct as they stand, an offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 IPC were made out. A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that the appellant and the complainant first came in contact in the year 2017 and established a relationship thereafter. The parties met multiple times at various places during the years 2017 and 2019, including at parks and their respective houses. Although the complainant stated that the appellant had a forceful sexual relationship with her, neither did she stop meeting the appellant thereafter, nor did she file a criminal complaint during the said period. 18. The parties met multiple times at various places during the years 2017 and 2019, including at parks and their respective houses. Although the complainant stated that the appellant had a forceful sexual relationship with her, neither did she stop meeting the appellant thereafter, nor did she file a criminal complaint during the said period. 18. It is inconceivable that the complainant would continue to meet the appellant or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with him in the absence of voluntary consent on her part. Moreover, it would have been improbable for the appellant to ascertain the complainant's residential address, as mentioned in the FIR unless such information had been voluntarily provided by the complainant herself. It is also revealed that, at one point, both parties had an intention to marry each other, though this plan ultimately did not materialize. The appellant and the complainant were in a consensual relationship. They are both educated adults. The complainant, after filing the FIR against the appellant, got married in the year 2020 to some other person. Similarly, the appellant was also married in the year 2019. Possibly the marriage of the appellant in the year 2019 has led the complainant to file the FIR against him as they were in a consensual relationship till then. 19. In our view, taking the allegations in the FIR and the charge- sheet as they stand, the crucial ingredients of the offence under Section 376 (2)(n) IPC are absent. A review of the FIR and the complainant's statement under Section 164 CrPC discloses no indication that any promise of marriage was extended at the outset of their relationship in 2017. Therefore, even if the prosecution's case is accepted at its face value, it cannot be concluded that the complainant engaged in a sexual relationship with the appellant solely on account of any assurance of marriage from the appellant. The relationship between the parties was cordial and also consensual in nature. A mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship. Further, both parties are now married to someone else and have moved on in their respective lives. What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship. Further, both parties are now married to someone else and have moved on in their respective lives. Thus, in our view, the continuation of the prosecution in the present case would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. Therefore, no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution. 20. The ingredients of criminal intimidation are threat to another person, inter alia, with any injury to his person, reputation with intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to any act which he is not legally bound to do. In the instant case, as already noted, the relationship between the appellant and the complainant was consensual in nature. In fact, they wanted to fructify the relationship into marriage. It is in that context that they indulged in sexual activity. Therefore, there cannot be a case of criminal intimidation involved as against the complainant. We do not find that there was any threat caused to the complainant by the appellant when all along there was cordiality between them and it was only when the appellant got married in the year 2019 that the complainant filed a complaint. In the circumstances, we do not think that the offence under Section 503 read with Section 506 of the IPC has been made out in the instant case.” 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for 1 st respondent, on instructions submitted that on receipt of a complaint from the 2 nd respondent, the 1 st respondent registered the F.I.R. in Crime No.1007 of 2011 for an offence under Sec. 417, 420, 354, 376, 506(1) r/w Sec.4 of TNPHW Act and thereafter, no letter of withdrawal from the 2 nd respondent was received by the 1 st respondent. In order to falsify the case of prosecution, the petitioner was produced before this court and after recording statements from the petitioner, the F.I.R. was kept in abeyance and the 2 nd respondent was not examined under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. Only in the year of 2023, on 01.09.2023, the statement under Sec.164 Cr.P.C. was recorded from the 2 nd respondent by the Addl. Mahila Judge, Tiruvallur. Mahila Judge, Tiruvallur. She had categorically stated that based on the assurance given by the petitioner that he would publicly marry with the 2 nd respondent and as such, she had given a letter for dropping of further progress to her advocate, however, no letter was given to the 1 st respondent. Thereafter, the 1 st respondent had examined 15 more witnesses and out of which, they have recorded the statement of 2 nd respondent. Once again, the 2 nd respondent had appeared before the 1 st respondent and submitted a letter dated 16.09.2023, thereby requested to withdraw the complaint. However, once again, she had sent a message through whatsapp on 23.09.2023 to the Investigation Officer stating that she does not want to withdraw the complaint and she wanted to proceed as against the petitioner. Therefore, investigation is ordered and about to complete the investigation within a short span of time. 5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 6. On perusal of records, it reveals that the 2 nd respondent never feeling love with the petitioner. Due to her family dispute and also a dispute in film industry, she and her family members approached the petitioner. On the assurance given by the petitioner as if he would get marry her, she was compelled to have sexual intercourse with the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to marry her and hence, she immediately lodged a complaint. 7. It is also seen that due to various reasons, the 1 st respondent did not complete the investigation though recorded statement from various witnesses under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Further, the petitioner also promised to marry the 2 nd respondent. Only after lodging of second complaint on 28.08.2023, the 1 st respondent initiated investigation afresh by examining more than 15 witnesses and also recorded statement of 2 nd respondent under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. On perusal of complaint, it is seen that on 28.08.2023 she narrated all the events after her first complaint. After her complaint, the petitioner assured and promised that he would marry the 2 nd respondent publicly in the manner known to law. However, he had also insisted to abort her pregnancy more than 6 to 7 times. He had also extracted huge money from the 2 nd respondent. Due to political pressure, there was no action taken on her second complaint. However, he had also insisted to abort her pregnancy more than 6 to 7 times. He had also extracted huge money from the 2 nd respondent. Due to political pressure, there was no action taken on her second complaint. After lodging second complaint, the 1 st respondent proceeded with the investigation by recording her statement under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. That apart, on perusal of letter dated 16.09.2023 which was given by the 2 nd respondent, it would reveals that the 2 nd respondent is facing severe mental agony. Therefore, the 2 nd respondent wished to withdraw the complaint. Thus, it is clear that the withdrawal letter was given by the 2 nd respondent only on threat. The offence under Sec.376 of I.P.C. is very serious and grave in nature. It is registered under non-bailable offence and not non-compoundable offence. Therefore, though the victim does not want to proceed further as against the petitioner, it cannot be withdrawn automatically. Thus, it is based on the victim. Therefore, even assuming that victim submitted a communication to withdraw her complaint, it cannot be acted upon. Due to the above facts and circumstances, the judgment cited by the learned single judge is not applicable to the facts of the present case, since there was consensual sex between two adults. That apart, both got married other person and moved on their own way respectively. Furthermore, on perusal of statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. from the 2 nd respondent, there are chain of allegation as against the petitioner and it would clearly attracts the offence as stated by her as against the petitioner. Hence, the F.I.R. registered as against the petitioner cannot be quashed. 8. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to quash the F.I.R. registered in Crime No. 1007/2011 for an offence under Sec. Sec.417, 420, 354, 376, 506(i) of I.P.C. r/w Sec.4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and this petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, the 1 st respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.