Allowed¶83

Meenatchi v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Mar 2025CRL OP/17634/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan J., 18.03.2025) allows Crl.O.P. under S.482 CrPC and quashes FIR Crime No.267 of 2022, Poraiyar Police Station, Mayiladuthruai District — land-investment dispute where defacto complainant alleges payment of Rs.51,48,000/- to the deceased Selvaraj; offences under S.147, S.148 (unlawful assembly), S.294(b) (obscene acts), S.506(ii) (criminal intimidation) and S.420 IPC (cheating) held not made out against widow and children of Selvaraj; relies on K.Jeyaramanuju v. Janakaraj, 1996(1) CTC 470 on S.294(b) annoyance ingredient.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; FIR in Crime No.267 of 2022 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Poraiyar Police Station, Mayiladuthruai District quashed; connected Crl.M.P.No.11561 of 2023 closed. ¶83

Meenatchi Vs Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶83

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Information Report in Crime No.267 of 2022 pending on the file of the first respondent is liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

No offences are made out against the petitioners; consequently the First Information Report in Crime No.267 of 2022 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

¶80

Ratio / Principle

Offences under Sections 147 and 148 IPC are not made out against the petitioners because, although those offences require involvement of more than five persons, only three accused (A1 to A3) are arrayed in this case.

¶43

Key takeaways

The offence under Section 294(b) IPC is not made out: there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioners constituting the offence, there are no averments or allegations, and nothing shows that anyone felt annoyed on hearing obscene words allegedly uttered by the petitioners.ratio¶50
Applying K.Jeyaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj & anr., 1996(1) CTC 470 (mere utterance of obscene words insufficient; further proof of annoyance of others required), the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is not at all attracted against the petitioners.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed; FIR in Crime No.267 of 2022 of Poraiyar Police Station (Mayiladuthruai District) under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii) and 420 IPC against three accused quashed. Held: (i) Sections 147/148 IPC require involvement of more than five persons, whereas only three accused (A1 to A3) are arrayed; (ii) Section 294(b) IPC not attracted — no obscene words attributed, no averments, and no proof that anyone felt annoyed, following K.Jeyaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj & anr., 1996(1) CTC 470; (iii) Section 506(ii) IPC not attracted — no averment of a real threat; (iv) Section 420 IPC not made out — the entire alleged amount of Rs.51,48,000/- was received by the first petitioner's late husband Selvaraj, the petitioners were unconnected with the transactions, and they never induced the payment, though the sale deed stood in favour of petitioners 2 and 3. No sufficient proof of the transactions between the defacto complainant and the deceased Selvaraj; no specific allegations of scolding or filthy language; earlier private complaint under S.156(3) Cr.P.C. had been withdrawn by the complainant on 22.03.2022. Connected Crl.M.P. closed.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.17634 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.17634 of 2023

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.M.P.No.11561 of 2023

¶9

1. Meenatchi

¶10

2. Vasatharaja

¶11

3. Rajmeena ... Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

1.The Inspector of Police, Poraiyar Police Station, Mayiladuthruai District. (Crime No.267 of 2022)

¶14

2.Sivasankari .. Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to call for the records in Crime No.267 of 2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Poraiyar Police Station, Mayiladuthruai District and quash the same by allowing the present Criminal Original Petition.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr. K. Suresh Babu, for Mr. M. Balaji For Respondents : Mr. R. VinothRaja, (for R1) Government Advocate (Criminal Side) : Mr. T. M. Naveen (for R2)

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Page 1 of 11

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.O.P.No.17634 of 2023

¶21

This petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.267 of 2022 pending on the file of the first respondent.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶23

(i) Initially, the defacto complainant/second respondent lodged a private complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedue Code, (Cr.P.C), 1973, which was dismissed as withdrawn by herself on 22.03.2022. Thereafter, for an alleged occurrence that took place on 25.03.2022, the second respondent lodged a complaint before the first respondent. Based on this complaint, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.267 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (IPC), 1860.

¶24

(ii) The allegations are that one Selvaraj, the husband of the 1^st petitioner and the father of the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners, approached the second respondent and represented that a land situated at Kalamanallur in Chinngakudi Village, belonging to the family of one Gnanasekaran, S/o. Chandrakasu of Sembanarkoil, Tharangambadi Taluk, Mayiladuthruai

¶25

Page 2 of 11

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.17634 of 2023

¶28

District, was for sale. The land's value was allegedly more than Rs.60 Lakhs, and the said Selvaraj proposed that if the second respondent invested Rs.30 Lakhs, he would invest the remaining amount to purchase the said land to start a real estate business.

¶29

(iii) On such representation, the second respondent paid Rs.30 Lakhs. Subsequently, the said Selvaraj demanded an additional sum of Rs.21,48,000/- to purchase the said land, the second respondent also paid the said sum. It is alleged by the second respondent/defacto complainant that the said Selvaraj received a total sum of Rs.51,48,000/- from her for this purpose.

¶30

(iv) Though there was an agreement made between the second respondent and the said Selvaraj, to execute the sale deed in favour of the second respondent, the sale deed was executed in favour of the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners by the first petitioner. After the demise of the said Selvaraj, when the second respondent went to the house of the petitioners and asked the petitioners to return the money, they allegedly threatened her with dire consequences. Consequently, the said First Information Report

¶31

Page 3 of 11

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.17634 of 2023

¶34

in Crime No.267 of 2022 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii) and 420 of IPC, as against the petitioners by the first respondent.

¶35

(v) According to the petitioners, there are absolutely no ingreidents

¶36

to attract any of the offences as alleged by the second respondent. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

¶38

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the records, this Court is of the view that the money which is said to have been paid by the second respondent to the said Selvaraj, when he was alive. After the demise of the said Selvaraj on 27.02.2020, the second respondent lodged a private complaint and at a later point of time, it was withdrawn by herself on 22.03.2022. Without

¶39

Page 4 of 11

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.17634 of 2023

¶42

taking any action against the deceased Selvaraj, the second respondent had lodged a complaint in the year 2022. Moreover, there is no sufficient proof to establish the entire transactions between the second respondent and the deceased Selvaraj. Furthermore, there are no specific allegations that the petitioners scolded the second respondent/defacto complainant or used filthy language.

¶43

Admittedly, to attract the offences under Sections 147 and 148 of IPC, there must be more than five persons involved. However, in this case, there are only three accused, with the petitioners arrayed as A1 to A3. Therefore, the offences under Sections 147 and 148 of IPC are not made out as against these petitioners.

¶44

Insofar as the allegation under Section 294(b) of IPC, is concerned, there 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 IPC, as follows :-

¶45

" 294. Obscene acts and songs —Whoever, to the annoyance of others— (a) does any obscene act in any

¶46

Page 5 of 11

¶47

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

¶48

Crl.O.P.No.17634 of 2023

¶49

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."

¶50

In view of the above, 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

¶51

made out.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

"To prove the offence under Section 294 of IPC

¶55

Page 6 of 11

¶56

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

¶57

Crl.O.P.No.17634 of 2023

¶58

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."

¶59

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 these petitioners.

¶60

Insofar as the offence under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C is concerned, threat should be a real one and not just a mere words when the person uttering does not exactly mean what he says and also when the person to whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. Whereas, in the case on hand, there is no averment to attract the offence under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C.

¶61

As far as the offence under Section 420 of IPC., is concerned, even according to the second respondent, the entire amount has been received by the first petitioner's husband and the petitioners were no way connected with the said transactions. However, the sale deed was executed in favour of the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners by the first petitioner.

¶62

Page 7 of 11

¶63

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

¶64

Crl.O.P.No.17634 of 2023

¶65

Therefore, the petitioners never induced the second respondent to pay such an amount.

¶66

In this context, it is relevant to extract the provisions of Section

¶67

420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which read as follows :-

¶68

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property — Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶69

The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC are as follows :-

¶70

(i) A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415 and

¶71

Page 8 of 11

¶72

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

¶73

Crl.O.P.No.17634 of 2023

¶74

(ii) The person cheated must be dishonestly

¶75

induced to

¶76

(a) deliver property to any person or

¶77

(b) make, alter or destroy valuable

¶78

security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.

¶79

Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC.

¶80

In view of the above, no offences are made out against these petitioners, and the First Information Report in Crime No.267 of 2022 cannot be sustained. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

¶81

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed, and the

¶82

First Information Report in Crime No.267 of 2022 pending on the file of

¶83

the Inspector of Police, Poraiyar Police Station, Mayiladuthruai District, is hereby quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶84

Page 9 of 11

¶85

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

¶86

Crl.O.P.No.17634 of 2023

¶87

18.03.2025

¶88

Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order

¶89

klt