A.T.Rajendra Sekar @ Sekar & Ors. vs State Of Tamilnadu & Ors.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.136 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police, seeking to quash the First Information Report, which alleges the commission of offences punishable under Section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS”) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “TNPHW Act”).

The defacto complainant initially lodged a complaint with the first respondent police on 08.04.2025 against the first petitioner and one Ilango. Upon enquiry, the said complaint was closed as a “mistake of fact” on 27.01.2026. The defacto complainant thereafter filed Cr.M.P.No.1241 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai (FAC), under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Pursuant to the order passed therein on 29.01.2026, the present First Information Report came to be registered. In the interregnum, the said Ilango died on 27.08.2025, and consequently, he has not been arrayed as an accused in the First Information Report.

The gist of the First Information Report is as follows:

(i).The defacto complainant, having been divorced from her husband about four years ago, resides alone with her daughter and regularly attends St. Mary's Church. While they were on their way to the Church, two persons, namely the said Ilango and the first accused, are stated to have looked at her daughter in an improper manner and caused her obstruction. It is alleged that they also followed her into the Church and continued to cause her inconvenience. Such conduct is stated to have caused considerable distress to her daughter, who became apprehensive even of walking alone along the road leading to the Church.

It is further alleged that, even inside the Church, the said Ilango and the first accused looked at the complainant's daughter in an improper manner, and that whenever she changed her seat, they too moved and seated themselves near her. It is also alleged that they instigated men known to them to look at her daughter improperly. According to the complainant, although such uncivil conduct was initially tolerated, certain unidentified persons subsequently jostled against her daughter while she was walking alone.

It is further alleged that the second accused, namely Amala, who is the wife of the said Ilango, along with her daughter, made insinuating remarks about the complainant's daughter, associating her with other men, while the complainant and her daughter were walking home. It is alleged that the second accused and her daughter deliberately followed them, thereafter came in front of them, and took photographs on their mobile phones. It is further stated that, on one occasion, the said Ilango was cautioned, whereupon he apologised and assured that he would not repeat such conduct. It is also alleged that the first accused and the wife of Ilango told others that the complainant's daughter was looking at Ilango and the first accused, and thereby humiliated her.

It is alleged that on 04.04.2025, the said Ilango hovered around the complainant's daughter, harassed her, and brushed against her with sexual intent. It is further alleged that on 06.04.2025, at about 6.15 p.m., the said Ilango recorded a video of her daughter on his mobile phone; her daughter, having noticed the same, in turn recorded his conduct on her own mobile phone, and the said recording was handed over to the police. As the complaint lodged with the police did not elicit any proper response, the complainant approached the jurisdictional Magistrate, pursuant to whose order the First Information Report was registered.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant had initially lodged a complaint with the first respondent police on 08.04.2025 against the first accused and the wife of Ilango, which was closed as a mistake of fact. Thereafter, by making false averments, she approached the jurisdictional Magistrate and obtained an order directing registration of the First Information Report.

The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that Section 78 of BNS and Section 4 of the TNPHW Act can be invoked only against a man, and therefore cannot be invoked against the second petitioner, who is a woman. It was further submitted that, although it is alleged that a video recording was handed over to the first respondent police, no such recording was in fact furnished. The learned counsel pointed out that the allegations against the petitioners are vague, and do not specify any date, time or place. The incidents said to have occurred on 04.04.2025 and 06.04.2025 implicate only the said Ilango, who is no more. As against the petitioners, the only allegation is that they made insinuating remarks about the defacto complainant's daughter while she was walking home.

Insofar as the first accused is concerned, it is only alleged that he looked at the daughter of the defacto complainant, without any date, time or place being specified. It was therefore contended that there is no allegation of any act or attempted act on the part of the first accused, and the learned counsel accordingly prayed for quashing of the First Information Report.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the harassment of the defacto complainant and her daughter was persistent, which compelled her to lodge a complaint with the jurisdictional police. However, the complaint was closed without a proper enquiry, and the complainant was therefore constrained to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate, who, upon finding prima facie material, issued a direction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for registration of a First Information Report.

The learned counsel for the second respondent further submitted that the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners raise disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in a petition for quashing. It was further submitted that the allegations in the First Information Report warrant investigation, and that this Court ought not to interdict the investigation.

It was further submitted that video recordings relating to the allegations against the second petitioner have been handed over, and that the same require to be analysed before any conclusion is reached; hence, the investigation ought to be permitted to proceed. It was also submitted that the First Information Report was registered pursuant to the direction of the jurisdictional Magistrate, that the investigation is under way with summons having been issued to the persons concerned, and that since the investigation is at a nascent stage, this Court may not interfere at this juncture.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials on record.

The petitioners are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 78 of BNS and Section 4 of the TNPHW Act.

Insofar as the first accused is concerned, a reading of the allegations as a whole, together with those made against the said Ilango, shows that he is alleged to have looked at the complainant's daughter with a “wrongful outlook” while she was proceeding to the Church and also within the Church; to have changed his seat whenever she changed hers; to have instigated men known to them to look at her in an improper manner; and, along with Ilango's wife, to have told others that the complainant's daughter was looking at them. On a plain reading of these allegations, it is evident that there is no averment that the first accused ever spoke to, called, messaged, approached or contacted the complainant's daughter with a view to fostering personal interaction. Nor do the allegations disclose any specific conduct on the part of the first accused that would amount to lowering her reputation.

The only instance mentioned in the complaint where the complainant's family conveyed their objection is a warning administered to the said Ilango, who thereafter apologised. There is no allegation that any such objection or warning was ever conveyed to the first accused. Further, the incidents dated 04.04.2025 and 06.04.2025 are attributed solely to the said Ilango, who is no more. Consequently, on the allegations contained in the First Information Report, the essential ingredients of Section 78 of BNS are not attracted as against the first accused.

As regards the allegation against the first accused under Section 4 of the TNPHW Act, the expressions employed in the First Information Report are that he looked at the complainant's daughter with a “wrong outlook” and caused disturbance and difficulty. However, there is no specific allegation of any particular act, gesture, word or conduct attributable to the first accused that would constitute harassment within the meaning of the said provision. The complaint neither discloses the specific act allegedly committed by him, nor the occasion, nor even the month in which the alleged incident took place. The allegation that he instigated “men close to them” neither identifies any such person nor describes any act done pursuant to such instigation. It is significant that wherever the complainant had a specific grievance, she consistently furnished specific dates and particulars, as is evident from the allegations against the said Ilango relating to 04.04.2025 and 06.04.2025. As against the first accused, however, apart from the bald allegation of instigation, no specific date, incident or overt act has been alleged. The allegations against the first accused are thus vague, omnibus and bereft of particulars, and even if taken at their face value, do not disclose any overt act or material allegation constituting the ingredients of the offence alleged.

Insofar as the second accused is concerned, she is a woman and cannot be the principal offender under Section 78 of BNS. In the absence of any provision invoking joint liability, or any other specific provision rendering her liable for the alleged acts of the first accused, the said offence cannot be attracted against her on the allegations in the First Information Report. The First Information Report also contains no allegation that the second accused followed or contacted the complainant's daughter. The allegations against the second accused, therefore, do not fall within the ambit of Section 78 of BNS in any manner.

As regards the allegation against the second accused under Section 4 of the TNPHW Act, it is alleged that she, along with her daughter, made insinuating remarks concerning the complainant's daughter, linking her with other men, and that she followed the complainant and her daughter, came in front of them and took photographs on her mobile phone. However, there is no specific allegation of any indecent contact, physical act or other conduct attributable to her, nor any allegation that she participated in or committed any specific act of harassment as contemplated under the said provision. The mere allegation that she made certain remarks or insinuations concerning the complainant's daughter does not constitute an offence under the TNPHW Act. There is, therefore, no material to proceed against the second accused.

Another significant circumstance is that the complaint dated 08.04.2025 alleges no incident after April 2025; the only person against whom specific acts are alleged is the said Ilango, who died on 27.08.2025; and the First Information Report was registered in March 2026, nearly eleven months later. There is no reference to any subsequent incident or additional material disclosing the commission of the alleged offences by the petitioners, against whom, as held above, no offence is made out. In these circumstances, permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that, on a plain reading of the First Information Report, the ingredients of Section 78 of BNS and Section 4 of the TNPHW Act are not made out against the petitioners. Accordingly, the First Information Report in Crime No.136 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police is hereby quashed, and this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.