A.Paneerselvam Vs the Inspector of Police

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records and quash the entire proceedings pertaining to the FIR in Cr.No.128 of 2023 dated 19.05.2023 on the file of the respondent police station.

¶18

1/8

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.OP.No.15889 of 2023

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr.K.M.Subramaniam For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 : No appearance for R2

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Cr.No.128 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police .

¶24

2. Though notice was served on the second respondent and his

¶25

name is also printed in the cause-list, no one appeared before this Court either in person or through counsel.

¶26

3. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant/second respondent one R.Dharmalingam is that he is a Government Contractor. He was allotted work to construct small bridge in the irrigation channel which was situated at the Government Poramboke land, near Yesu Temple Street, Sirkazhi. On 23.04.2023 at 06.00a.m, the petitioners/accused came to the said place and caused damage to the construction work. When it is questioned by

¶27

the second respondent, the petitioners have threatened him with dire consequence and also attacked by the tamps and depths. Hence, the

¶28

2/8

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.OP.No.15889 of 2023

¶31

complaint has been lodged by the second respondent before the first respondent police.

¶32

4. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent has registered an FIR against the petitioners in Cr.No.128 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 352 of IPC, 1860 and 3(1) of Tamilnadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act ,1992.

¶33

5. A perusal of records revealed that after allotment of bridge work in favour of the second respondent, the second respondent did not construct the bridge in accordance with the guidelines. Therefore, the petitioners and the entire villagers have vehemently opposed and protested against the construction of bridge, since it was against the interest and welfare of the village administration. Further, only 25% of the amount was spent by the second respondent for constructing the bridge, the remaining amount was looted by the second respondent and as such, the petitioners questioned the same with the second respondent, the second respondent with the influence of the first respondent foisted a false case against the petitioners. The

¶34

3/8

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.OP.No.15889 of 2023

¶37

second respondent to shut the petitioners' mouth from asking any questions while constructing the bridge.

¶38

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

¶39

must 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

¶40

IPC, as follows :-

¶41

" 294. Obscene acts and songs —

¶42

Whoever, to the annoyance of others—

¶43

(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

¶44

months, or with fine, or with both."

¶45

Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioners as

¶46

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

¶47

4/8

¶48

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

¶49

Crl.OP.No.15889 of 2023

¶50

evidence to show that the words uttered by the petitioners annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out.

¶51

It is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in 1996(1)

¶52

CTC 470 in the case of K.Jeyaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj & anr., which held as follows :-

¶53

"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."

¶54

The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case and

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

5/8

¶58

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

¶59

Crl.OP.No.15889 of 2023

¶60

Section 482 Cr.P.C.:

¶61

"102..........

¶62

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."

¶63

In so far as the other offences are concerned, no ingredients to attract

¶64

the said offence. T herefore, the impugned FIR is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and the entire allegations cannot be sustained as against the petitioners and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the FIR registered in Crime No.128 of 2023 on the file of the first

¶65

respondent police is hereby quashed.

¶66

9. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

08.042025

Vv

6/8

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