In the case, the prosecution was right in registering the case under Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 against the Accused, as de-facto Complainant/Victim (Transgender) named Neka views herself as a woman is observed by the Tamil Nadu High Court.
The plea (filed under S. 482 Cr.PC) of the Petitioner-Accused booked under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 heard by the bench of Justice G.R Swaminathan.
The petitioner-accused is the owner of the lodge and Respondent (Neka) stayed in one of the rooms in the lodge. On the occurrence date, the petitioner-accused barged into her room and when was questioned, he abused her in the filthy language. The de-facto complaint was filed by Neka.
The counsel for petitioner stated that the Respondent being Transgender and it was not open to prosecution to invoke the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
The Supreme Court, in the case of National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 483, had held “that it is entirely for the transgender person to self-identify her gender and that this self-determination cannot be questioned by others.”
The Court observed in this case,
“In the case of hand, the defacto complainant/Neka views herself as a woman. Therefore, the prosecution rightly accepted the said self-identification and registered the case under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. Therefore, I find no merit in the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that invocation of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, is not maintainable.”
Thus, the Court dismissed the Criminal original petition.
