IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01. 10.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M. AKBAR ALI Crl.O.P.No.6169 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 Mrs.C.T. Rani .. Petitioner(Accused) vs. 1. State rep by The Inspector of Police (Crime) H-8, Thiruvottiyur Police Station Chennai-600 019. ..Respondent(Complainant) 2. Vikranth .. Respondent(Defacto Complainant) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the reliefs as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.R. Sankarasubbu For 1st respondent : Mr.Hassan Mohamed Jinnah APP For 2nd respondent : Mr.C.V. Kumar O R D E R The petition is filed seeking a direction to call for the records in C.C.No.16 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur and quash the same. 2. The petitioner has been charged for offences punishable under Sec.341, 294-b, 332 and 355 IPC. This is a peculiar case of the prosecution against a woman of aged 39 years, who travelled along with her two children from Periyar Nagar Bus Stand to Chindadripet in the bus Route No.28 of the Madras Transport Corporation. The complainant is the conductor who was on duty and according to him, on 9.1.2010, around 7.10 p.m, the petitioner and her children boarded the bus he asked for the tickets; she tendered a hundred rupees note and asked for only one ticket. When the conductor asked her to take tickets for the children also, she refused and demanded only one ticket. Therefore, the conductor promptly told her to get down at the next bus stop, since she was not willing to take three tickets. However, according to the conductor, the petitioner used filthy language and caught hold the shirt of the conductor and pushed him from the bus. The conductor fell down and the woman took the slippers of the conductor and slapped him and the driver and the other passengers came to the rescue of the conductor and both were taken to H-8, Thiruvottiyur Police Station, where the conductor gave a complaint, which was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ registered in Cr.No.19/2010. However, the petitioner also gave a complaint alleging that the conductor asked her elder daughter by name Kaviya for the ticket, for which, she told the conductor that she would take the tickets and tendered Rs.100/- and the conductor refused stating that he had no change for the currency and forcibly de-boarded her from the bus and there was exchange of words and altercation on which the conductor assaulted the petitioner. 3. However, the Inspector of Police, examined the driver and other passengers of the bus and also on examination of the doctor, he found that there is no truth in the complaint given by the petitioner and closed it as mistake of fact and on the complaint given by the conductor, he filed a charge sheet for the offences as stated above. Aggrieved by which the petitioner is before us. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur took the case on file in C.C.No.12/2010 against which, the present quash petition is filed on the ground that the investigation has not been fairly conducted and the investigating officer had not taken note of the abusive words used by the conductor, the status of the petitioner, a post graduate, and a staff of this Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner never used any abusive language and it is unbelievable that she being, a woman, assaulted a public servant and the witnesses are partisan. 5. When the matter was taken up, notice was issued to the defacto-complainant and he appeared through a counsel. At the request of both the counsels, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The parties appeared and since mediation process failed, this Court proceeded to hear the arguments. 6. When the matter was posted again, there was no representation for the defacto-complainant. 7. Mr.R. Sankara Subbu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the passenger in the MTC bus travelling along with her children and it is only the defacto- complainant misbehaved with her and the 1st respondent has foisted a false case. The learned counsel pointed out that except the interested testimony of the driver and the conductor, the evidence of the other passengers would also show that there was a wordy quarrel between the defacto-complainant and the petitioner. 8. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner along with her children had travelled in the MTC bus route No.28 on 9.1.2010 around 7.00 p.m. According to the petitioner, the defacto-complainant demanded ticket from one of the children. But according to the defacto- complainant, the petitioner tendered Rs.100/- and asked for only one ticket and he insisted to take tickets for the children, for which, she quarrelled and assaulted the conductor. 10. Admittedly, it is a case and counter. But the complaint given by the petitioner was enquired and closed as "mistake of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fact". When there are two complaints and there are ample evidence to show there was a wordy altercation followed by a scuffle, the investigating officer ought to have investigated both the matters and filed two final reports. It is unbelievable that a working women, who travelled along with two children, pushed the conductor off the bus and assaulted him with his own slipper. The failure of the investigating officer in not filing the final report in both the cases calls for the intervention of this Court. 11. In the result, the criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.16 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur is quashed. Consequently, connected MP is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sr To 1. The Inspector of Police (Crime) H-8, Thiruvottiyur Police Station Chennai-600 019 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 2 cc To Mr.R. Sankarasubbu, Advocate, SR.72708/10 Crl.O.P.No.6169 of 2010 sv(co) pmk.8.10.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/