Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Fatima vs The State Represented By on 30 March, 2022

Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

                                                                            Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5828 of 2022


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                    DATED: 30.03.2022

                                                         CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                              Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5828 of 2022
                                                          and
                                              Crl.M.P(MD)No.4118 of 2022

                     1.Fatima
                       (wrongly mentioned as Fathima Babu
                           instead of Fatima in F.I.R)
                     2.S.Raja                          ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 8

                                                           Vs.

                     1.The State represented by,
                       The Inspector of Police,
                       Thoothukudi SIPCOT Police Station,
                       Thoothukudi District.
                       (In Crime No.140 of 2018).      ... 1st Respondent/Complainant

                     2.M.Seenivasan                           ... 2nd Respondent/
                                                                     Defacto complainant


                     Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
                     call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned First
                     Information Report in Crime No.140 of 2018 on the file of the first
                     respondent Police Station and quash the same as against the
                     petitioners are concerned.


                                  For Petitioners       : Mr.Henri Tiphagne

                                  For R – 1             : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
                                                          Additional Public Prosecutor




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/7
                                                                            Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5828 of 2022



                                                         ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.140 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) of I.P.C and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 as against the petitioners.

2.There are totally 11 accused named accused and others, in which the petitioners are arraigned as A.1 and A.8.

3.The case of the prosecution is that on 12.04.2018 when the Sterlite company workers were about to proceed on a bus to give a petition to the District Collector regarding the company, the petitioners and other accused persons indulged in criminal intimidation against them and also damaged the glass of the bus. Hence, the case has been registered.

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and perused the entire materials available on record. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5828 of 2022

5.On a perusal of the materials available on record revealed that the petitioners and others have been engaged in protest against the establishment and continued running of the Sterlite Industry for the past several years. The first petitioner worked as an Associate Professor and retired from service and she is also an environmental activist. The second petitioner has been serving as an elected office-bearer of the Tamil Nadu Vannigar Sangam in Thoothukudi District for many years and he has also been engaged in representing the Sangam in many anti-Sterlite protest activities for its closure. The petitioners have been agitating the Sterlite issue in a democratic manner by way of approaching Court and other peaceful protest. The first petitioner is being a woman, the case registered for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act would not attract as against her. Further, admittedly the petitioners are agitators against the Sterlite company and this is the only reason for implicating them in the impugned F.I.R registered in Crime No.140 of 2018. Even as per the impugned F.I.R, there are no ingredients to attract the offences under Section 294(b) and 506(ii) of I.P.C as against the petitioners.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5828 of 2022

6.In this regard, it is relevant to extract the provision under Section 294(b) of IPC, which reads as under:

"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, Section 294(b) of I.P.C is not attracted as against the petitioners.

7.It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court 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."

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5828 of 2022 The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case and the allegations are frivolous in nature and the petitioners need not go for ordeal of trial.

8.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.

9.Insofar as the other offences are concerned, there are no ingredients to attract the offences as against the petitioners.

10.In view of the above discussions, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the FIR in Crime No.140 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent is quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.




                                                                                   30.03.2022
                     Internet          :Yes
                     Index             :Yes / No
                     ps



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/7 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5828 of 2022 Note :

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi SIPCOT Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/7 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5828 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

ps Order made in Crl.O.P(MD)No.5828 of 2022 30.03.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/7