The High Court quashed criminal proceedings following an order under Section 482 Cr.P.C., finding evidence insufficient to sustain charges of obscene acts, threats, and assaulting public servants as no independent witnesses corroborated the prosecution's version.
Proceedings in C.C.No.599 of 2021 before VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, are quashed.
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.7217 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.7217 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.4802 of 2021
K.P.Chandrawekaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Law & Order, B-4, Esplanade Police Station, Chennai.
2.T.Sivarajan
... Respondents
PRAYER:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records of C.C.No.599 of 2021 on the file of VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Chandrawekaran Party-in-Person
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R2 : No Appearance
Page 1 of 8
CRL.O.P.No.7217 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed calling for the records of C.C.No.599 of 2021 on the file of VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town and quash the same.
out of the Advocate General office of this Court, the petitioner scolded the second respondent with filthy language for the reason that the second respondent only called the petitioner for enquiry on the complaint lodged by one Sarangapani in C.S.R.No.224 of 2018. Further, he also abused him in filthy language and prevented him from discharging his official duty. Hence, the complaint.
Page 2 of 8
CRL.O.P.No.7217 of 2021
in C.C.No.599 of 2021.
" 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
Page 3 of 8
CRL.O.P.No.7217 of 2021
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 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.
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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4 of 8
CRL.O.P.No.7217 of 2021
offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not at all attracted as against the petitioners.
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
Page 5 of 8
CRL.O.P.No.7217 of 2021
20.10.2023
Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No
Page 6 of 8
CRL.O.P.No.7217 of 2021
Speaking / Non Speaking order mn
To
Page 7 of 8
CRL.O.P.No.7217 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
Crl.O.P.No.7217 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.4802 of 2021
20.10.2023
Page 8 of 8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under IPC Sections 294(b), 353, and 506(1) are maintainable when no independent witnesses other than police were examined and mere allegations of obscene words or threats
Whether the ingredients for offences under Section 294 IPC requiring proof of annoyance and under Section 506 IPC requiring a real threat to cause alarm are established in the facts.
Whether the criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of the process of the court and should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.Jeyaramanjuju Vs. Janakaraj & anr.Applied¶38
1996(1) CTC 470
Abdul Agis Vs. StateExplained¶47
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K.P.Chandrawekaran
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Law & Order, B-4, Esplanade Police Station, Chennai
T.Sivarajan
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
