Madras High Court
J.Thamarai Selvan vs The Special Sub-Inspector Of Police on 31 August, 2020
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
CRL.O.P.No.8836 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.08.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No. 8836 of 2020
J.Thamarai Selvan
S/o.K.Jeevantham ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Special Sub-Inspector of Police,
Peralam Police Station,
Thiruvarur District.
(Crime No.80 of 2020)
2. R.Sudhakar
S/o.Rajamanickam ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records and quash the proceedings in Crime No. 80 of
2020 pending on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.S.Karthikeyan
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : No appearance
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No. 80 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC as against the petitioner. http://www.judis.nic.in Page 1 of 6 CRL.O.P.No.8836 of 2020
2. Heard Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
3. The second respondent lodged complaint alleging that he is a member of the prime political party and the petitioner had written some alleged statement about the second respondent's political party in his face book page. When the second respondent indented to lodged complaint before the first respondent police, he went to the police station on 18.02.2020. On the way to the police station, the petitioner was standing in a tea shop and abused the second respondent with filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences.
4. It is seen from the content of the statement, which was allegedly written in the face book that questioned the extra charges, charged by the particular political party cadres in the TNCSC centre. It was not making any abusive content or indecent manner and incite any violence in the particular class or defame statement. It is also seen from the complaint, no words uttered by the petitioner as against the second respondent and also there is no http://www.judis.nic.in Page 2 of 6 CRL.O.P.No.8836 of 2020 allegation of threatening by the petitioner herein. There is absolutely no prima facie case made out to attract the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC as against the petitioner. 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.
"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."
5. Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioner as such to constitute the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there is no averment and allegation. Further the charges do not show that on hearing the obscene words, which were allegedly uttered by the petitioner, 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 petitioner annoyed others, it can not be said that the ingredients of the offence http://www.judis.nic.in Page 3 of 6 CRL.O.P.No.8836 of 2020 under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out. 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."
6. In another judgment reported in (1994) 2 Crime 67 in the case of V.Dhasiah Vs. State, it was held as follows :-
"Therefore a mere allegation of use of obscene words without mentioning that the words uttered and without complaining that the same has resulted in the annoyance to the complainant cannot attract a charge under Section 294(b) IPC"
The above judgments are squarely applicable to the present case and therefore there is no allegation to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC as against the petitioner.
http://www.judis.nic.in Page 4 of 6 CRL.O.P.No.8836 of 2020
7. Insofar as the other offence under Section 506(i) of IPC, there is absolutely no allegation to attract the said offence of criminal intimidation as against the petitioner. Further when an individual is threatened or induced to case injury by the offender who had the intention to his reputation or property or to any individual or person related to him. When it being so, there is absolutely no allegations as against the petitioner under Section 506(i) of IPC. Therefore, the present FIR is nothing but clear abuse of process of Court and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioner.
8. In view of the above discussion, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceeding in C.C.No.4455 of 2019 on the file of the learned FTC-II, Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, is hereby quashed.
31.08.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order rts http://www.judis.nic.in Page 5 of 6 CRL.O.P.No.8836 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts To
1. The Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Peralam Police Station, Thiruvarur District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
CRL.O.P.No. 8836 of 2020
31.08.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in Page 6 of 6