Siva Shankar Baba sexual assault: Madras High Court refuses to quash FIR; says it received threat letters after reserving order

The Madras High Court on Wednesday refused to quash the first information report (FIR) registered against self-proclaimed godman Siva Shankar Baba on allegations of sexual assault..Justice RN Manjula dismissed Siva Shankar Baba's plea after the Court had initially quashed the case against him, before recalling this order..The judge also noted that after the order was reserved in the case, the Court had received "pseudonymous letters" threatening it and asking it to refrain from passing orders. The order stated,"Before parting, this Court places it on record about an ugly turn that had taken place after this matter was reserved for orders. Pseudonymous letters of threat was sent for dissuading this Court from passing orders in this petition. Such cheap attitude on the part of the person who sent would only show cowardice and disregard to the process of the Court. The Courts are not pliable for such kind of threats and those cheap attempts will not stand in the way of dispensing justice," the High Court said..On October 17 last year, Justice Manjula had quashed the FIR against the godman on the ground of a 'technical flaw.' At the time, the Court had said that while the incident allegedly occurred between 2010-11, the FIR was registered only in 2021 and the prosecution failed to file an application before the magistrate seeking condonation of such delay.However, on November 21, the Court recalled this order after the Tamil Nadu government filed a plea before the Court stating that the chargesheet had already been filed in the case when the High Court had quashed the FIR. The State had also said that the godman's case was an "extraordinary" one, as he was a repeat offender who had sexually harassed or assaulted at least six students at a residential school run by him. He had also sexually harassed two parents of his students, including the complainant, the State had told the Court..Siva Shankar Baba stands accused of sexual harassment by a single mother of a student at his residential school.The complainant woman had told the Court that she had filed a revision petition for setting aside the order of cognisance in order to enable the prosecution to file a petition under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) along with the chargesheet, to seek condonation of delay.She also said that at the time of the incident, she was a single mother to two minor sons, and had no support. Hence, she was unable to file a complaint immediately. However, in 2021, after she heard of fresh allegations against the petitioner, she confided in her sons, who are now grown up. They supported her and encouraged her to report the incident to the police, she told the Court..The godman's counsel, however, reiterated that the complaint ought to have been filed within three years from the alleged date of its occurrence. He argued that the complainant woman had chosen to send her complaint to the Director General of Police's office in July 2021 through an email, after a lapse of ten years, and hence, it was barred by limitation..The High Court refused to grant relief to Siva Shankar Baba. It, however, granted him liberty to approach the Court after the order on the complainant's criminal revision application was delivered. "...the petitioner can raise his objections in the event of any petition is filed by the first respondent under Section 473 Cr.P.C. Even if the Criminal Revision Petition is pending but there is no order of stay, the petitioner shall have the liberty of either filing a fresh Criminal Original Petition for quashing the charge sheet or a petition before the trial Court for discharging him on the ground of limitation. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed," the order stated..The Court also questioned the lapse on the part of the prosecution in failing to file the application under Section 473 CrPC for condonation of delay. Such lapse, it said, had resulted in providing an opportunity to the accused to seek quashing of the FIR."Prosecuting Agency who demands a serious consideration from the Courts should have also acted in a serious manner by taking all possible action at the earliest point of time," it said..While dismissing the godman's plea, the High Court also issued a slew of guidelines for lower courts when dealing with the "law of limitation applicable to criminal cases." It said whenever magisterial action or orders, including an order for remand, needed to be passed against an accused in such case where FIR was registered for an "offence already barred by limitation," the concerned court must "not pass any such order, without passing a speaking order about the extension of the period of limitation/condonation, after giving a notice of opportunity to the accused." It also said that an accused can be remanded to custody only if the magisterial court "positively considers the extension of limitation.".Advocate R Vijayakumar appeared for the petitioner Siva Shankar Baba. State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, Additional Public Prosecutor A Damodaran, and Government Advocate S Vinoth Kumar appeared for the State. Advocate R Vivekanandan appeared for the complainant woman..[Read order]