The High Court of Madras quashed the FIR against the petitioner in a cheque-related dispute where other accused faced trial. The court held that no offence was made out against her as there were no specific allegations of obscenity uttered by her or trespass, noting the parties were relatives.
FIR in Crime No.409 of 2020 quashed as against the petitioner alone.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.NO.8950 OF 2020 AND CRL.M.P.NO.4197 OF 2020
Priyadarshini
... Petitioner/2nd Accused
.Vs.
PRAYER:-
Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records and quash the case in FIR No.409 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.John Sathyan
For Respondents For R1 : Mr .V.Balamurugane Public Prosecutor (Pondy) For R2 : Mr.S.I.Sharukumar For Mr.K.Elangovan
O R D E R
The petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.409 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent, registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 427, 448 and 506(ii) of IPC r/w. Section 34 of IPC, as against the petitioner.
the first accused herein along with the petitioner and other 20 persons came to his home and demanded a sum of Rs.3 crores, which was entrusted to him. It is further alleged that when the defacto complainant told that the earlier complaint lodged against him is pending before the Central Crime Branch and asked to co-operate with the enquiry, the first accused along with the petitioner entered into the bedroom and threatened the defacto complainant that they would murder him and family members. They also damaged the CCTV camera fixed in the defacto complainant's home. Hence the complaint.
3.1. While be so, on 11.05.2020, the first accused and the second respondent met in Aarya's Hotel, Thindivanam and the second respondent drove his car and reached Chennai. A sum of Rs.3 crores given by the prospective buyers was loaded in the car driven by the second respondent in a suitcase and a handbag and the second respondent insisted that he traveled in his car and followed him. Accordingly, the first accused and another followed the car driven by the second respondent till the Office of the Director General of Police, Kamaraj Road. Thereafter second respondent got disconnected and could not be contacted. When the first accused was nearing Tindivanam, the second respondent called him and asked to come to his house. Thereafter, the second respondent informed that while he was driving, he was chased by police and in order to escape, he dumped the money at Greenways Road and disconnected the phone. Therefore, the first accused lodged complaint in which the second respondent had taken full responsibility and assured to settle the money. Accordingly, the petitioner being wife of the first accused went to the house of the second respondent and the second respondent and his wife requested a couple of days to settle the entire amount. In fact, the second respondent had given written undertaking in the presence of witnesses, thereby he would settle the entire amount.
3.2. In pursuant to the said complaint dated 18.05.2020, it was referred to The Superintendant of Police, Villupuram. In fact, the first accused and the second respondent were appeared before the Superintendant of Police, Villupuram for enquiry. During the enquiry, the second respondent admitted that he had given money to one Mohan, Ariyur, Puducherry. Therefore, the Superintendant of Police, Villupuram, suggested that the parties being relatives could resolve the dispute through negotiations. In pursuant to the said suggestion, the petitioner along with the first accused and 20 others went to the house of the second respondent, where the second respondent abused and attempted to assault the first accused. Thereafter, the impugned FIR has been registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 427, 448 and 506(ii) of IPC r/w. Section 34 of IPC of IPC.
3.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even according to the defacto complainant, no offence is made out as alleged by the prosecution. The present complain is noting but counter blast to the earlier complaint lodged by the petitioner's husband dated 18.05.2020. Hence he prays to quash the FIR in Crime No.409 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent.
"294. Obscene acts and songs —Whoever, to the annoyance of others— (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both."
reported in 1996(1) CTC 470 in the case of K.Jeyaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj & anr., which held as follows :-
"To prove the offence under Section 294 of IPC mere utterance of obscence words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case."
The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case and therefore, the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not at all attracted as against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned complaint is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioner.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rts
To
CRL.O.P.NO.8950 OF 2020 AND CRL.M.P.NO.4197 OF 2020
SR(CO) PBS/15/07/2022
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC are made out against the petitioner when there is no specific averment of words uttered by her causing annoyance.
Whether quashing the FIR in respect of the petitioner alone amounts to abuse of process of court given the plea of counter blast and lack of specific allegations.
Whether the first accused had a right to enter the complainant's house given they are relatives and consent was admitted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.Jeyaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj & anr.Applied¶31
1996(1) CTC 470
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Priyadarshini
The State
M. Kannapiran
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
