S.Ramanathan vs Superintendent Of Police And Others

G.R.Swaminathan, J

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

2.The petitioner is a lawyer practising in the Judicial Magistrate cum District Munsif Court, Kamuthi. He came to know in May 2021 that on 13.04.2021, a lady Court staff was sexually assaulted between 3.00 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. in the afternoon in the Court premises by an Advocate by name Shri.N.Muniyasamy who also happens to be the President of Kamuthi Advocates Association. He took up the matter with the in-charge Magistrate. He also spoke to some of the fellow lawyers for initiating action against the Bar President. Instead of acting on the petitioner's request, the petitioner was implicated in Crime No.782 of 2021 for the offence under Section 294(b) of I.P.C. Interestingly, Thiru.Muniyasamy is the defacto complainant therein. Since his complaints did not elicit any response, he filed the present writ petition.

3.Since an allegation of sexual assault within the Court premises had been made, I directed the Registry to obtain a report from the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram. Pursuant to the said direction, the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram had submitted his report bearing D.No.A1/8235/2021 dated 15.12.2021.

4.The said report mentions that Tmt.S... submitted a grievance petition in the third week of April 2021 seeking transfer to any other Court. She had alleged that she was being disturbed by Thiru.Muniyasamy. Based on her request, she was transferred to another Court. Considering the nature of grievance, the matter was forwarded to the GSICC Committee, Ramanathapuram on 28.04.2021 itself. The Committee took cognizance of the complaint and issued notice to the complainant. The complainant appeared before the Committee on 23.06.2021 at 3.00 p.m. The Chairperson appraised the complainant about her options. The complainant confirmed that the allegations made by her in her complaint are true. Since she had already been transferred to another Court, she did not want to pursue the matter against Thiru.Muniyasamy. In view of her stand, the Committee decided not to take any action against Thiru.Muniyasamy. Based on the recommendation of the Committee, the complaint was closed. The learned Principal District Judge has enclosed the said written submission of the victim and the final report of the GSICC Committee, Ramanathapuram along with the report. The report further states that the occurrence was captured in the CCTV and the footage is very much available.

5.The allegations are extremely serious. The matter concerns the safety of a woman employee and the sanctity of the court. The Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram, in his report has confirmed that the victim had categorically stated that the allegations made by her against Thiru.Muniyasamy, Bar President are true. She however did not want to pursue the matter because she has been granted the relief of transfer. While the complainant/victim may not want to pursue the matter, the Court cannot be a mute spectator to the incident. It cannot gloss it over. Here is a case where there are prima facie materials to show that the Bar President in a drunken condition misbehaved with a lady Court staff in the Court premises during working hours. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 13.04.2021. It is stated that it was a holiday(Ugadi). The victim was on turn duty and alone in the office. According to her, Thiru.N.Muniyasamy came to her seat at around 3.15 p.m. in a drunken condition and made an improper proposal. After the victim severely warned him, Thiru.Muniyasamy retreated but told her that he would wait for her. The petitioner asserts before me that he happened to see the CCTV footage. According to the petitioner, Thiru.Muniyasamy is seen sexually molesting the victim by pulling her hand and doing a few more things.

6.Since I have not seen the CCTV footage, I refrain from making further comments. Nevertheless, the materials available on record clearly make out offences under Sections 353 and 354 of I.P.C and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. I, therefore, direct the respondent to register First Information Report based on the petitioner's complaint dated 04.12.2021.

7.I further direct the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram to refer the matter to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu for initiating appropriate disciplinary action against Thiru.N.Muniyasamy, President, Kamuthi Bar Association. The learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram, shall make two copies of the CCTV footage and they will be made available to the Bar Council as well as the Inspector of Police, Kamuthi Police Station. The identity of the victim shall be strictly protected. I make it clear that the issuance of the directions or the observations made in this order would not in any way prejudice the defence which Thiru.N.Muniyasamy may possibly have. All his contentions are left open. I appreciate the writ petitioner Thiru.S.Ramanathan for taking up this cause. This writ petition is allowed.