Madras High Court
K.Kanniah Naidu vs The State By on 8 September, 2022
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.17380 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.17380 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.No.10557 of 2022
K.Kanniah Naidu ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The State by
The Inspector of Police,
T 3 Korattur Police Station,
Chennai.
2.T.Damodharan ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records on the file of the first
respondent in Crime No.325 of 2022 and quash the first information
report registered by the first respondent in Crime No.325 of 2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Parthiban
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.P.Rakesh Kumar
for Mr.L.Rajasekar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
Crl.O.P.No.17380 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in Crime No.325 of 2022 and to quash the same.
2. The FIR in Crime No.325 of 2022 has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC, on the direction issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambathur in C.M.P.No.855 of 2022, that the first respondent shall investigate the complaint dated 17.11.2021 and register an FIR and file a report.
3. The petitioner is arrayed as A3. He is the father of the first accused. The second accused is the sister of the first accused. The first accused got married with the son of the defacto complainant and it was an arranged marriage. After their marriage, they went to U.S.A and later to Canada. Due to their wedlock, they also gave birth to a child. There was misunderstanding between them and as such they got separated. The first accused returned to India to see her parents viz, the petitioner. Thereafter, the second respondent and his wife refused to accept the first accused in their house, due to which, the first accused lodged a complaint https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10 Crl.O.P.No.17380 of 2022 before the All Women Police Station, Ambattur and she was issued CSR in CSR No.422 of 2021. In fact, the first accused also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in HMOP No.556 of 2021 and it is pending on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee. Thereafter, she also filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act in D.V.No.14 of 2022 and it is pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambathur.
4. While being so, the second respondent filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambathur, seeking direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In the said petition, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambathur, directed the first respondent to register an FIR and investigate the same and file a final report.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petition seeking direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C has been accompanied with the affidavit in support of this petition. The complaint did not even whisper about the name of the petitioner. Whereas, in the affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner herein entered into the house of the second respondent along with A1 and A2. That apart, in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10 Crl.O.P.No.17380 of 2022 order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambathur, the date of which they entered into the house is mentioned as 17.11.2012 instead of 17.11.2021. Further, nowhere the date of alleged occurrence has been mentioned neither in the petition nor in the affidavit filed by the second respondent. He further submitted that the petitioner challenged the FIR registered in Crime No.325 of 2022 and the same was withdrawn with a liberty to challenge the order passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. He also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Suresh Kankra Vs. State of U.P. And others” in “Crl.A.No.52 of 2022” dated 07.01.2022, wherein held that the Judicial Magistrate is required to be conscious of the consequences while passing an Order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C it being a judicial order, relevant materials are expected to be taken not of.
6. A perusal of the complaint revealed that the first accused is the wife of the second respondent's son. They got married and went to U.S.A and later to Canada. Thereafter, they got separated due to misunderstanding and the first accused returned to India. When the first accused along with her parents went to the second respondent's house to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10 Crl.O.P.No.17380 of 2022 pacify the issues, there was a quarrel between them. When the daughter- in-law of the second respondent enters into her matrimonial home, it would not amount to trespass. Further, insofar as the other offences are concerned, viz, 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC, alleging that they started verbal abuse and started to harass the second respondent's wife with unparliamentary words. Nowhere it is stated that what are all the words uttered against the second respondent and his wife.
7. To attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, 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 :-
"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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10 Crl.O.P.No.17380 of 2022 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.
8. 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 :-
"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 offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not at all attracted https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10 Crl.O.P.No.17380 of 2022 as against the petitioners.
9. Insofar as the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C is concerned, to attract the offence, 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 petitioner were only empty threats and they had no effect on the complainant.
10. 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 Vs. State 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 Crl.O.P.No.17380 of 2022 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.”
11. Therefore, no offence is made out as against the petitioner and other accused. That apart, the learned Magistrate without considering the aspects, mechanically directed the first respondent to register an FIR and investigate the same. The learned Magistrate before issuance of direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, ought to have taken note of the relevant materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/10 Crl.O.P.No.17380 of 2022
12. In view of the above, the order passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C cannot be sustained as against the accused persons. Therefore, the FIR in Crime No.325 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.09.2022 Internet: Yes Index : Yes Speaking mn/gd G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10 Crl.O.P.No.17380 of 2022 mn To
1.The Inspector of Police, T 3 Korattur Police Station, Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.17380 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.10557 of 2022
08.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10