Allowing Trial To Continue Without Identifying Accused Would Embarrass & Vilify Victim, Resulting In Mockery Upon Womanhood: Madras HC Quashes Sexual Abuse Case
The Madras High Court recently quashed a sexual harassment case under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The court added that since the accused person had not been identified for 3 years, continuing the proceedings would be a mockery upon womanhood and bring further embarrassment to the woman who would be put to mental agony. Justice Anand Venkatesh...
The Madras High Court recently quashed a sexual harassment case under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The court added that since the accused person had not been identified for 3 years, continuing the proceedings would be a mockery upon womanhood and bring further embarrassment to the woman who would be put to mental agony.
Justice Anand Venkatesh also lamented that in many sexual abuse cases, not many were willing to come to court and fight against the abuse and even if a few came forward to fight, the system was not very friendly. The court added that in many cases, the victim ended up facing a double whammy by suffering sexual abuse and embarrassment in the court. The court also remarked that this was more of a punishment for the victim.
“Even for those who want to fight and establish their right, the system does not seem to be friendly and on the other hand, such victim will have to undergo embarrassing moments in the Court. For having given the complaint, the victim faces double whammy in terms of suffering a sexual abuse and embarrassment in Court which tantamounts to punishing the victim and the accused who has not even been identified, will go scot-free. This Court is not inclined to permit such mockery to continue in the present case,” the court observed.
The court was hearing a plea by a woman challenging the witness summons issued to her by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore. The woman had submitted that on November, 20 2020, while she was on a morning walk, a man riding a scooter groped her chest and immediately absconded from the place. She gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police along with images captured by a camera in the opposite house. Based on this complaint, an FIR was lodged under S. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
The woman further submitted that on August 11, 2023, she was summoned to the court below but even after waiting from 10 am to 4:30pm nothing turned out and she was unnecessarily made to recall the incident. Saying that she did not want to go through the painful process again, the woman had challenged the witness summon.
The court noted that based on the materials available on record, the accused had not been identified as there was no clarity with regard to the vehicle in which he travelled at the time. The court also noted that though there were two eye witnesses, they could only confess about the incident and could not identify the person and thus could not help the prosecution.
The court was thus of the opinion that there was no reason for the criminal trial to go on just to dabble with the incident involving sexual abuse even without identifying the accused. The court also opined that if the trial was to go on, it would cause embarrassment to the victim who will be vilified while the so-called accused person will go scot free. This, in the court's opinion would be a “mockery upon womanhood”.
Thus, exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, the court was inclined to quash the proceedings.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.G.R.Hari
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
Case Title: XXXX v State
Case No: W.P No.1727 of 2024