Krishnakumar Vs State Rep by

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in Crime No.287 of 2023 on 14.12.2023 pending on the file of the respondent.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. K. Karthik

¶18

For Respondents : Mr. R. Vinothraja, (for R1)

¶19

Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶20

: Mr. N. Vijayaraj, (for R2) O R D E R

¶21

Page 1 of 10

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.5566 of 2024

¶24

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in the First Information Report in Crime No.287 of 2023 pending on the file of the second respondent.

¶25

On the complaint lodged by the third respondent, the second respondent registered a First Information Report in Crime No.287 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 448, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC, r/w Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), SC/ST(PoA), Act, 1989, alleging that the third respondent had given a sum of Rs.13,77,138/- to the petitioner for renovation of a flat situated at N-21, 3^rd Floor, Arumbakkam, Chennai, in the month of March 2023. However, after receiving the said amount, the petitioner did not perform the renovation work properly. Therefore, the third respondent requested the petitioner to return the amount. During their conversation, the petitioner allegedly used filthy language and abused the third respondent by using his caste name.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused

¶27

Page 2 of 10

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.5566 of 2024

¶30

the materials placed before this Court.

¶31

4. Admittedly, there is a commercial transaction between the defacto complainant and the petitioner. The third respondent/defacto complainant entrusted the renovation work to the petitioner and provided money on a day-to-day basis. The daily work of the petitioner was done under surveillance of the defacto complainant/third respondent. Upon perusal of the records, it is evident that after the compelition of the renovation work, the defacto complainant calimed that the work done by the petitioner was not proper. Therefore, no offence is made out and no ingriedent in the complaint to attract Sections 448, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC.

¶32

Further, in order to attract the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, the occurrence must have taken place in a public place. According to the third respondent, the petitioner and others came to the house found him by using his caste name. Therefore, the offences under Sections 448, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC, r/w Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, are not all made out as against the petitioner.

¶33

Page 3 of 10

¶34

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

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.5566 of 2024

¶36

In order to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there must be an uttering of words to affect the person who lodged the

¶37

complaint. In this regard it is relevant to extract the Section 294(b) of IPC, as follows :-

¶38

" 294. Obscene acts and songs —Whoever, to

¶39

the annoyance of others—

¶40

(a) does any obscene act in any public place,

¶41

or

¶42

(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."

¶43

Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the

¶44

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

¶45

made out.

¶46

Page 4 of 10

¶47

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

¶48

Crl.O.P.No.5566 of 2024

¶49

In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 238 in the case of Om Prakash Ambedkar Vs. State of Maharastra and ors, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the test of obscenity under Section 294(b) of IPC is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those, whose minds are open to such immoral influences. This Court finds that the words uttered in this case have such a tendency. The words are defamatory about the complainant but this Court doesn't think that the words are obscene and the utterance would constitute an offence punishable under Section 294(b) of IPC. Further it has to be noted in the present case in the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) of IPC. Therefore, there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case. 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 accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of

¶50

Page 5 of 10

¶51

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

¶52

Crl.O.P.No.5566 of 2024

¶53

IPC is made out. Therefore, no case is made out as against the petitioners to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC.

¶54

In order to attract the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C 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 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 petitioners were only empty threats and they had no effect on the complainant.

¶55

In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014 in the case of Abdul Agis

¶56

Vs. State through the Inspector of Police , which reads as follows:-

¶57

“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

¶58

Page 6 of 10

¶59

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

¶60

Crl.O.P.No.5566 of 2024

¶61

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.”

¶62

Insofar as the offence under Section 448 of IPC is concerned,

¶63

the petitioner never claimed any ownership over the house of the third respondent. The renovation work was entrusted to the petitioner to renovate the flat owned by the defacto complainant/third respondent, and in fact, the petitioner had completed the renovation for the money received by him. However, the work done by the petitioner was not satisfactory, and therefore, the third respondent asked the petitioner to return the money. Consequently, no offence is made out under Section 448 of IPC against the petitioner as alleged by the third respondent.

¶64

Page 7 of 10

¶65

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

¶66

Crl.O.P.No.5566 of 2024

¶67