Madras High Court
Susanna Daisy Rani vs The Inspector Of Police on 5 November, 2019
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1227 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1227 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.581 & 582 of 2019
Susanna Daisy Rani
(Wrongly Mentioned in
Chargesheet Daisy Rani, ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Inspector of Police,
Puliyarai Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
2.Vincent Anbukkarasi,
3.Vijaya Vaikundaraja ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records connected with the case
in C.C.No.21/2018 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate,
Sengottai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muniasamy
For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
Government Advocate(crl.side)
For R2 & R3 : Ms.Jessi Jeeva Priya
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.21 of 2018 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Sengottai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1227 of 2019
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the second and third respondents and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) for the respondents.
3. It is seen that the petitioner is the sole accused in this case. The crux of the complaint is that on 01.02.2017, at about 11.30 a.m, near THADCO Nagar bus stop, the petitioner abused the third respondent, who is the police constable, using filthy language and also obstruct her from doing her official duty. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has lodged a private complaint as against the second respondent, who is working as Sub-Inspector of Police in the same Station and it is pending for taking cognizance in Cr.M.P.No.2376 of 2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shengottai and therefore, the present proceeding has been initiated, which is nothing but counter blast. Further, it is seen that to attract the charge under Section 353 I.P.C., there are no ingredients and no averments and no one has spoken about the obstruction of doing official duty by the petitioner. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2016 (2) T.N.L.R. 520 (Mad) (MB) [Dhanalakshmi Vs. The State ] which reads as follows:-
http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1227 of 2019 “8. When a Government Servant is prevented from doing his public duty Section 353, I.P.C is attracted. In this case, there is no allegation that the accused has assaulted nor used criminal force as against the woman S.I. Further, the alleged act does not result in disruption in further carrying out of her public duties. Offence under Section 353, I.P.C also will not arise. ”
4. The ingredients of the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. are not made out as against the petitioner. The charge does not show the obscene words, which were uttered by the accused and no one even whisper about the filthy words uttered by the accused as against the defacto complainant/ third respondent. Therefore, the offence under Section 294(b) of I.P.C.
is not at all made out as against the petitioner herein. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014 (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 with dire http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1227 of 2019 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.”
5. The above judgments are squarely applicable in the case on hand. Admittedly, the private complaint is pending as against the second respondent herein, who is working as Sub-Inspector of Police, who is registered the case as against the petitioner.
Therefore, the entire proceeding is clear an abuse of process of law and it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.21 of 2018 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sengottai, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
05.11.2019 Ls http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1227 of 2019 To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sengottai,
2. The Inspector of Police, Puliyarai Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1227 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.,J.
Ls Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1227 of 2019 05.11.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6