Allowed¶53

Rajalakshmi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Apr 2025CRL OP/13753/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; Section 482 Cr.P.C. inherent powers of High Court; Section 294(b) IPC — annoyance of others an essential ingredient, mere utterance of obscene words insufficient; K.Jeyaramanuju 1996(1) CTC 470 relied on; Bajanlal (1992) SCC Crl. 426 category 7 applied; abuse of process of law; maliciously instituted proceedings; pending civil suit before District Munsif Court, Tiruvarur; hammer broke compound wall; filthy language allegation; petitioner Rajalakshmi; respondents State (Inspector of Police, Tiruvarur Taluk Police Station) and Deepan; Madras High Court; Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan; decided 07.04.2025; Crl.O.P.No.13753 of 2023; Crl.M.P.No.8443 of 2023.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Cr.No.260 of 2023 pending on the file of the first respondent quashed; connected Miscellaneous Petition (Crl.M.P.No.8443 of 2023) closed.

Rajalakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR in Cr.No.260 of 2023 pending on the file of the first respondent quashed; connected Miscellaneous Petition (Crl.M.P.No.8443 of 2023) closed.

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.260 of 2023 registered under Section 294(b) of IPC against the petitioner is liable to be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Applying category 7 of Bajanlal v. State of Haryana ((1992) SCC Crl. 426) on maliciously instituted proceedings, the impugned complaint is nothing but a clear abuse of process of law and cannot be sustained against the petitioner.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of legal evidence that the words allegedly uttered by the petitioner annoyed others, and with no averments or allegations of obscene utterance, the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC are not made out.

¶33

Key takeaways

Applying K.Jeyaramanuju (1996(1) CTC 470) — mere utterance of obscene words being insufficient without proof of annoyance of others — the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not at all attracted against the petitioner.ratio¶37
The impugned FIR cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed; accordingly, the FIR in Cr.No.260 of 2023 pending on the file of the first respondent is quashed.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed; FIR in Crime No.260 of 2023 (Tiruvarur Taluk Police Station, offence under Section 294(b) IPC) quashed. The dispute arose out of a neighbourhood property matter — a civil suit was pending before the District Munsif Court, Tiruvarur — with the complaint alleging that the petitioner and her husband abused the defacto complainant after a hammer broke his compound wall. Held: (i) there is no averment that the petitioner uttered obscene words or that any witness felt annoyed on hearing them, so the ingredients of Section 294(b) IPC are absent, mere utterance of obscene words being insufficient (relying on K.Jeyaramanuju, 1996(1) CTC 470); and (ii) applying category 7 of Bajanlal v. State of Haryana ((1992) SCC Crl. 426), the impugned complaint is a clear abuse of the process of law and cannot be sustained. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.13753 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.04.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.13753 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.8443 of 2023

Rajalakshmi

... Petitioner

State Rep by: The Inspector of Police, Tiruvarur Taluk Police Station, Tiruvarur District. (Cr.No.260/2023)

¶11

Deepan ... Respondents

¶12

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in concern Cr.No:260/2023 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.T.Anbu Kumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) (for R1)

¶14

1/8

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.13753 of 2023

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.260 of 2023 o n the file of the first respondent, registered for the offences under Section 294(b) of IPC.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was constructing a house adjacent to the defacto complainant house without following the rules and without leaving some space from the defacto complainant compound wall. The civil suit was pending before the learned District Munsif Court at Tiruvarur. Further, on 19.02.2023, when the work was going on, a hammer fallen down and broken the compound wall of the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant questioned it, the petitioner along with his husband had scolded him with filthy language. Therefore, the defacto complainant foisted the complaint before the first respondent police. Based on the complaint of the defacto complainant, case in Crime No.260 of 2023 was registered by the first respondent as against the petitioner and the first and third accused.

¶20

2/8

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.13753 of 2023

¶23

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.260 of 2023 for the offences under Section 294(b) of IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

¶24

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

¶25

To attract the offences under Section 294(b) of IPC, there must

¶26

be an uttering of words to affect the person who lodged the complaint. In this regard it is relevant to extract the Section 294(b) of IPC, as follows :-

¶27

" 294. Obscene acts and songs —

¶28

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

¶29

3/8

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.13753 of 2023

¶32

description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both."

¶33

Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioner 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in 1996(1) CTC 470 in the case of K.Jeyaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj & anr., which held as follows :-

¶34

"To prove the offence under

¶35

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."

¶36

The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case and therefore,

¶37

the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not at all attracted as against the

¶38

4/8

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.13753 of 2023

¶41

petitioner.

¶42

It is also relevant to extract the judgement reported in (1992)

¶43

SCC 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.:

¶44

"102. In the backdrop of the

¶45

interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,.....

¶46

5/8

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

Crl.O.P.No.13753 of 2023

¶49

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."

¶50

Therefore, the impugned complaint is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioner.

¶51