Madras High Court Declines Plea Seeking FIR Against Woman For Alleged Blackmail, Calls It 'Calculated Attempt' To Defame Her

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by a man against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti, refusing to register a complaint against a woman, who had allegedly blackmailed the man and fraudulently taken money from him. Finding no merit in the plea, Justice Shamim Ahmed said that the plea was only a calculated attempt to defame a woman. The court added that entertaining such petitions could cause irreparable harm to the reputation of the woman. The court said that it would not allow such misuse of legal process and wanted to protect the dignity and reputation of the woman. “Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, including the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti.in Crl.MP.No.535 of 2025 dated 03.04.2025, this Court observes that entertaining petitions of this nature would likely cause irreparable harm to the reputation of the woman. The averments made in the petition appear to be a calculated attempt to defame the woman. This Court is not convinced by the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. The petition, lacks merit and seems to be filed with ulterior motives. Thus, this Court is inclined to dismiss the petition to prevent misuse of the legal process and protect the dignity and reputation of those unfairly targeted,” the court said. The court was hearing a plea by Satish against the Judicial magistrate's refusal to register an FIR against his female friend Rengapriya. Satish had submitted that he became acquainted with the woman in 2015, and in 2019, taking advantage of their friendship, she had allegedly obtained Rs. 45 Lakh from him by threatening to file a case against him for having intimacy by cheating. He submitted that he had filed a complaint in the Kovilpatti All Women Police Station alleging that the woman had illegally and fraudulently obtained money from him through blackmail, but no action had been taken based on the complaint. Later, he also sent a complaint to the Kovilpatti Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Thoothukudi District Superintendent of Police, but even then, no action had been taken. He further submitted that this prompted him to approach the magistrate seeking to have the complaint taken on file and for registering an FIR, but the petition was dismissed stating that there was no specific allegation or averments. He contended that he was a poor man undergoing financial distress and had been victimized by the woman's fraudulent actions. Arguing that he had made out a prima facie case, he submitted that the trial court had erred in dismissing his petition. On the other hand, the State submitted that the trial court had passed the order after duly considering the facts and circumstances of the case and there was no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the order, warranting the interference of the court. The court agreed and noted that there was no merits in the plea. The court remarked that the social context and cultural norms prevalent in the country must be duly considered. The court added that allowing such a plea, without a proper basis, could harm the cultural and traditional values and could make it difficult for the woman to get suitable marriage prospects. “In the present case, this Court finds that the Petitioner's allegations appear to be an attempt to harm the reputation of the 2nd Respondent/Rengapriya, which could potentially make it difficult for her family to arrange her marriage with a suitable family of their choice in the future. Thus, allowing such actions without proper basis could harm our cultural and traditional values. Therefore, the Court must be cautious and not entertain frivolous petitions aimed at defaming individuals. The Petitioner's actions appear to be intended to tarnish the 2nd Respondent's reputation without sufficient evidence. Such attempts to defame a woman without credible material are unwarranted and harmful to society,” the court noted. Thus, the court dismissed the plea. Counsel for The Petitioner: Mr. V. Vishnu Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. M. Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Case Title: R Sathish v. The Inspector of Police Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 314 Case No: CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1266 of 2025Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Madras High Court Declines Plea Seeking FIR Against Woman For Alleged Blackmail, Calls It 'Calculated Attempt' To Defame Her

Upasana Sajeev

Tags