Sridevi Sujatha v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 10.06.2025 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN --- Sridevi Sujatha, W/o Jaddu China Veerabhadra Rao .. Petitioner Vs.

1. State by: Sub-Inspector of Police, J2 Adyar Police Station, Chennai (Crime No.116 of 2023)

2. V.Anurekha, D/o K.Vaithilingam .. Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.116 of 2023 on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, J2 Adyar Police Station, Chennai, as against the petitioner.

For petitioner : Mr.A.Nagarajan For respondents: Dr.C.E.Pratap, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R-1 Mr.K.Thilageswaran for R-2 1 / 5

ORDER

This petition is filed to call for the records to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.116 of 2023 on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, J2 Adyar Police Station, Chennai, as against the petitioner, in respect of the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working as Branch Manager of the Bank and the de-facto complainant is working as Cashier in the Bank, in which the petitioner is working. She maintained cordial relationship and since the customer of the Bank made complaint against the de-facto complainant, she forwarded the same to the Head Office and based on their advise, a report was called for and in order to escape from the complaint made against the customers and due to pressure of the Union, they have made a false complaint against the petitioner. She being the Branch Manager and maintaining cordial relationship with each and everyone of the staff of the Branch, had not committed any offence and simply because of the pressure given by the Union, she made false complaint and prima-facie, there are no materials and so, the petitioner has committed the alleged offences and prayed that the FIR may be quashed.

2 / 5

3. Learned counsel for the second respondent/de-facto complainant submitted that, based on the complaint registered, the first respondent-Police registered a case and there are prima-facie allegations and it is for the first respondent-Police to investigate the matter.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that, prima-facie, there are allegations and therefore, they have registered the FIR and due to the stay granted by this Court, they could not proceed with the investigation.

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

6. On a reading of the FIR, it is clear that there are prima-facie allegations against the petitioner. The grounds taken by the petitioner are nothing but defences, which can be agitated only after investigation and after filing of the charge-sheet, and when once there are prima-facie allegations in the complaint, it is the duty of the investigating officer to investigate the matter and find out as to whether the alleged offences had taken place. At this stage, this Court cannot go into the facts and conduct roving enquiry and also find out the veracity of the allegations.

7. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that since there are primafacie allegations, it is for the first respondent-Police to conduct investigation and file a final report/charge-sheet before the competent Court. 3 / 5

8. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed. 10.06.2025 cs To

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, J2 Adyar Police Station, Chennai (Crime No.116 of 2023)

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 4 / 5

P.VELMURUGAN, J cs 10.06.2025 5 / 5