Madras High Court: In a petition praying to call for the records pertaining to witness summons issued in a sexual abuse case, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court and to quash the same, N. Anand Venkatesh, J. while quashing the summons, also exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and quashed the proceeding pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate on the ground that these proceedings will result in a punishment to the petitioner for having raised her voice against sexual abuse underwent by her in the broad daylight.
On 20-11-2020, when the petitioner was doing her regular morning walk, a man who was riding a blue scooter groped her chest and immediately he turned left and absconded from the place. According to the petitioner, this incident was captured on a camera that was available in the opposite house and the images were also shared with the police. Based on this complaint, an FIR came to be registered for offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. Initially, an FIR was registered against an unknown accused person, since there was no clarity on the identity of the accused person.
The petitioner has stated that she underwent an agonizing moment and she wanted to fight her case and therefore, gave a complaint to the police with the fond hope that the accused person will be identified, and action will be taken against him in accordance with law. The petitioner also collected the images captured in the CCTV footage, and it was given to the police. For nearly three years, the petitioner was following up with the police.
On 11-08-2023, the petitioner was summoned before the Court below. She kept waiting for hours and was unnecessarily made to recall that painful incident when she was waiting in the Court. The petitioner stated that she does not want to once again go through this painful process. Therefore, she challenged the witness summon that had been issued to her.
The Court noted that the accused person has not been properly identified in this case and there is no clarity regarding the vehicle in which he traveled at the time of the incident. The accused person was apprehended in some other case, and he is said to have confessed about this incident to the police during the investigation of the other case in which he was apprehended. Except this confession, there is no other material available in this case. The final report shows that there are two eyewitnesses to the incident. Unfortunately, these eyewitnesses can only speak about what happened at the relevant point of time without even identifying the person who was involved in that loathsome act. Therefore, the so-called eyewitnesses also cannot help the prosecution.
The Court said that it is an unfortunate case where the victim was virtually molested in broad daylight. The police were not able to properly identify the accused and the vehicle in which he was travelling. Therefore, if the petitioner undergoes trial, all embarrassing questions will be asked to her, and she must undergo further mental agony in the Court. The so-called eyewitnesses who have not identified the accused can only speak about the incident and that will only cause further mental agony to the petitioner
The Court further added that it is not necessary for a criminal trial to go on just to dabble with an incident involving sexual abuse without identifying an accused. If this is allowed, the victim will be embarrassed and vilified, and the so-called accused person will go scot-free, since he has not been identified by anyone in this case. No useful purpose will be served in proceeding and unfortunately, the petitioner will be punished if the proceedings go on.
The Court remarked that the instant case shows the stark reality involved in sexual abuse cases. Not many are willing to come to Court and fight for the abuse that they underwent. For those who want to fight and establish their rights, the system does not seem to be friendly and on the other hand, such victims will have to undergo embarrassing moments in the Court. For filing the complaint, the victim faces double whammy in terms of suffering a sexual abuse and embarrassment in Court which tantamount to punishing the victim and the accused who has not even been identified, will go scot-free.
Thus, apart from quashing the witness summons that was issued to the petitioner, the Court by exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India also quashed the proceeding pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate on the ground that these proceedings will result in a punishment to the petitioner for having raised her voice against sexual abuse underwent by her in the broad daylight.
[X v. State by Sub Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 158, Order dated 29-01-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate G.R.Hari
For Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor A. Damodaran
Buy Constitution of India HERE
