The Madras High Court has refused to quash a case booked under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act of 1998 on the sole ground that the alleged harassment had not taken place in a public place such as educational institution, place of worship, bus stop, road, railway station, cinema theatre, park, beach and so on.
Justice R.N. Manjula held that the exact location at which the harassment had taken place could be ascertained only during the course of trial. She agreed with senior counsel R. Vaigai, representing the victim woman, that the accused could not escape from the charge of harassment by raising a technical ground related to location of occurrence.
“Even, for the sake of argument, if it is understood that in order to punish the accused for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, the occurrence ought to have occurred in a public place, still the harassment of a woman is an offence and the accused can be punished under Section 354 Indian Penal Code,” she wrote.
According to the prosecution, the accused M.R. Sivaramakrishnan and the complainant were related to each other and were fighting a civil case with respect to a common pathway which leads to their houses situated within Kilpauk police station limits in Chennai. On April 30, 2016, the accused had parked his motorcycle blocking the entry to complainant’s house.
When the complainant and her sister tried to find way by moving the motorcycle, the accused threatened and abused them in filthy language. Their car driver too was threatened. The incident was recorded on an iPad and the recording was submitted to the police along with the complaint which had led to filing of a charge sheet and commencement of trial.
Now, the accused had approached the court to get the case quashed by relying upon a Supreme Court judgement as well as 2012 High Court verdict and contended that the 1998 law could be invoked by the police only if the alleged harassment had taken place at a public place and not otherwise.
Not convinced with such a ground, Justice Manjula said, even according to the accused, the harassment had taken place on a common pathway and not inside anyone’s house. “Therefore, only if the witnesses are examined and the accused is put to trial, the exact location can come to light,” she added.
Since the case was of the year 2016, the judge directed the Additional Mahila Court at Egmore in Chennai to complete the trial within three months.
