The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners in a dispute with neighbours. The court found allegations of obscene acts and threats to be bald, vague, and lacking legal evidence, constituting an abuse of court process.
Proceedings in C.C.No.778 of 2020 are quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
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.
CRL.O.P.No.5403 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.5403 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.3486 of 2021
Vs.
PRAYER:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.778 of 2020 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and to quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Madhusudanan For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R2 : No Appearance
Page 1 of 8
CRL.O.P.No.5403 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed calling for the records
pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.778 of 2020, on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and to quash the same.
Page 2 of 8
CRL.O.P.No.5403 of 2021
the second respondent are neighbours. There is a dispute regarding putting garbages in front of the house of the second respondent. Further, there is no specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offences under Sections 294 B, 506 (i) of IPC. All the allegations are bald and vague.
" 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."
Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioners as such to constitute the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there is no averments and allegations. Further the charges do not show that on hearing the obscene words, which were allegedly uttered by the petitioners, the witnesses felt annoyed. No
one has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3 of 8
CRL.O.P.No.5403 of 2021
of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the petitioners annoyed others, it can not be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out.
"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 petitioners.
attract the offence, threat and intention to cause an alarm are main ingredients. The third ingredient is that the intention must be to cause any person to do any
act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that
Page 4 of 8
CRL.O.P.No.5403 of 2021
person is legally entitled to do, subsequent to the main ingredients. Whereas in the case on hand, even according to the case of the prosecution, the alleged threats issued by the petitioner were only empty threats and they had no effect on the complainant.
made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014 in the case of Abdul Agis Vs. State
through the Inspector of Police , which reads as follows:-
“7.It is seen from the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. of the second respondent/ defacto complainant that it does not contain any obscene words, which were uttered by the petitioner herein and the entire allegations are very simple in nature. It is also seen from the statement of one Uthami, that the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences when he dashed the defacto complainant. The entire allegations are trivial in nature. Further, to attract the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C., there was a threatening only by words. As pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the petition uttering does not exactly mean what he says and also when the person to whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. Therefore, the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. are not made out as against the petitioner herein and also the entire criminal proceedings is clear an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the entire proceedings.”
Page 5 of 8
Crl. 426
CRL.O.P.No.5403 of 2021
Crl. 426 in the case of Bajanlal v. State of Haryana, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has listed out the following category of case in which the criminal proceedings can be quashed using the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
"102..........
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
Therefore, the impugned proceeding is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioners.
file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.10.2023
Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order mn
Page 6 of 8
CRL.O.P.No.5403 of 2021
To
Page 7 of 8
CRL.O.P.No.5403 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
Crl.O.P.No.5403 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.3486 of 2021
20.10.2023
Page 8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed in the interest of justice.
Whether the allegations constitute offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(1) IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.Jeyaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj & anr.Applied¶42
1996(1) CTC 470
Abdul Agis Vs. State through the Inspector of PoliceRelied on¶52
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014
Bajanlal v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶60
(1992) SCC Crl. 426 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramalingam and others
State
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
