CRL OP/25458/2026 of Yu Ki Choul Vs The State Rep.by its, Sub Inspector of Police on 26 October 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in SC No.217 of 2026, pending on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Section 4 of the Woman Harassment Act and 75(2) of the BNS, as against this petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.12.2024 at about 8.30 p.m, near Belvoir Block Maintenance office, when there was a power failure, the de- facto complainant was standing along with the House Keeping staff. At that time, the petitioner touched her buttocks and squeezed the left side of her hip with his hand, thereby outraging her modesty and committing sexual harassment. Hence the case was registered against the petitioner.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner does not know either English or Tamil. He would further submit that, from the contradictions between the complaint and the statement of the de-facto complainant, it is evident that no such occurrence took place as alleged by the de-facto complainant. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:26 pm )

CRL OP No. 25458 of 2026

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.

5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

6. On perusal of the impugned final report and the statements of the witnesses, it is revealed that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, which are sufficient to attract the alleged offences under Section 4 of the Woman Harassment Act and 75(2) of the BNS. The veracity of the allegations can be determined only at the stage of trial, upon the appreciation of evidence. The grounds raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019

(4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as against the accused. It could be done only by the trial

( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:26 pm )

CRL OP No. 25458 of 2026

Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C./180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (any one)

8. Fruther, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.(any one)

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain offences complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not and whether the allegations contained in the

( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:26 pm )

CRL OP No. 25458 of 2026

complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial.

10. Further, this Court cannot observe at this stage as to whether the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious or not. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained.

11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in S.C No.217 of 2026 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Uma

( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:26 pm )

CRL OP No. 25458 of 2026

To

1. The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, D3, Palur Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:26 pm )

CRL OP No. 25458 of 2026

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J. Uma CRL OP No. 25458 of 2026 and CRL MP Nos. 16857 and 16858 of 2026 26-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:26 pm )