Jonathan v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 04.042025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.16386 of 2023 and Crl.MP.No.10441 of 2023 1.Jonathan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. State represented by Inspector of Police, Pulianthope, Chennai District.

Cr.No.106 of 2023

2. Allice ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Cr. No.106 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, Chennai and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Dinesh For Respondents : Mr.R.VinothRaja Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, for R2 1/5

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Cr.No.106 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent.

2. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered an FIR alleging that on 22.01.2022, the second respondent received a phone call during which the caller asked, "Are you the wife of Dr. John Willmart - NRI?" and further requested that Rs.1,00,000/- be transferred to his account, seeking the bank details for the same.

3. It is further alleged that the second respondent made inquiries through the brother of the petitioner and confirmed that the caller was indeed the petitioner. However, no FIR was registered pursuant to the said complaint. Hence, the second respondent approached the jurisdictional Magistrate and obtained a direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., based on which the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.106 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 354, 509, and 506(ii) IPC.

2/5

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. A perusal of the records reveals that the petitioner has been serving as a Pastor in the church for the past two decades without any adverse remarks. During departmental proceedings initiated against one Pastor Sandalin on allegations of sexual misconduct, the second respondent and two others allegedly restrained the petitioner from discharging his official duties and also separated the accused from the church. Therefore, it is contended that the present complaint has been falsely lodged by the second respondent, alleging that she received a call from the petitioner.

6. In view of the above, the allegations are vague and baseless. There are absolutely no ingredients to attract the alleged offences against the petitioner. Therefore, the FIR appears to be a clear abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed. 3/5

7. Accordingly, the FIR registered in Cr.No.106 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed as against the petitioner and this Criminal Original petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

04.042025 Vv To

1. The Inspector of Police, Pulianthope, Chennai District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

4/5

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.16386 of 2023 04.04.2025 5/5