Madras High Court Judge Says She Was Threatened After Reserving Order In Shiva Sankar Baba’s Plea For Quashing FIR In Sexual Harassment Case

Before parting, this Court places it on record about an ugly turn that had taken place after this matter was reserved for orders. Pseudonymous letters of threat was sent for dissuading this Court from passing orders in this petition. Such cheap attitude on the part of the person who sent would only show cowardice and disregard to the process of the Court. The Courts are not pliable for such kind of threats and those cheap attempts will not stand in the way of dispensing justice. The above message is delivered in louder terms by way of passing the orders in this Criminal Original Petition.

Though the Court had initially allowed Baba’s pleas and quashed the FIR filed against him on the ground of limitation, that order was recalled on a petition filed by the de facto complainant who personally wished to be heard in the matter.

The case against Baba was that he had sexually harassed the de facto complainant when she visited the school to discuss about the sudden removal of her son from the school managed by Baba. Based on her complaint, a case was registered under Section 354 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act 2002.

The court noted that though the offence was said to have been committed in 2010-11, the complaint by way of an email was sent by the de facto complainant only in 2021 well beyond the limitation period. Thus, it was a time barred offence. The investigating officer, without seeking any permission to condone the delay, had committed a risk.

But when the offence is barred by limitation at the very instance when the complaint was given to the officer in-charge of the police station and if the Investigating Officer continues to investigate the case without seeking any permission or condonation from the Court, the risk goes with the Prosecuting Agency.

The prosecution argued that there was no obligation to file any petition under Section 473 CrPC seeking extension of limitation period at the stage of registering FIR or sending FIR to the court as registering FIR was not a magisterial action. Looking into Chapter XXXVI of the CrPC which deals with limitations for taking cognisance of certain offences, the court highlighted that the object of the provision was not to give preferential treatment to the prosecution.

The court added that deliberate inaction on the part of the prosecution to file a petition for extension of limitation under Section 473 CrPC could not guard it from being hit by the bar of limitation. The prosecution could not argue that a petition could be filed at any stage before the conclusion of the case.

Deliberate inaction on the part of the prosecution in filing a petition under Section 473 Cr.P.C. at the stage when the charge sheet is filed can not guard the case of the prosecution from getting failed due to bar of limitation. What was beyond the control of the prosecuting agency and what prevented it from filing the petition to condone the delay at the time of filing the charge sheet should also be explained in order to appreciate the reasons for condonation of delay in the interest of justice.

The court also added that the Magistrate was duty bound to give reasoned orders for extension of limitation as a fair trial was a facet of Article 21 of the constitution. Further, even though a police officer, using his unbridled powers, went on to investigate a time barred offence and arrest an accused, the court could not endorse the same unless it was in the interest of justice.

If a police officer registers a case involving an offence barred by limitation at the time when it was registered and goes on to investigate or even arrest the accused, it may be due to his unbridled powers. But the Court can not endorse the same, unless it is shown to be in the interest of justice. Even then, the Court can not pass any orders on a time barred complaint without giving any notice of opportunity to the opposite party and passing a reasoned orders for extension of limitation under Section 473 Cr.P.C.

In the present case, the court noted that the de facto complainant had filed a Criminal Revision petition to set aside the order of cognisance for enabling the prosecution to file a petition under Section 473 and to enable the court to pass speaking orders on limitation. Noting the same, the court disposed of the application filed by Baba and gave him liberty to raise objections and file petition for quashing the charge sheet before the trial court.

Case Title: Shiva Sankar Baba v. State and another

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 74