Madras High Court
Murugarajan vs The State Rep. By on 5 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13184 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13184 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.6037 and 6038 of 2020
Murugarajan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Thirunagar Police Station,
Madurai City.
(Crime No.22 of 2020)
2. Udayakumar ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
this Court to call for the records relating to the Final Report in C.C.307 of
2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No.6, Madurai and quash the
same as illegal so far as the petitioner is concerned.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13184 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Durai Pandian
For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.C.Gangai Amaran
ORDER
The criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.307 of 2020, on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate Court No.VI, Madurai.
2.On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first
respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.22 of 2020 for the offences under
Sections 294(b), 448, 427, 323 and 506(1) of IPC. On the allegations that on
23.11.2021, at about 12 pm, when the defacto complainant started to renovate
the shop with the help of the other workers, the petitioner had trespassed into
the premises and started to vacate the defacto complainant and others and
abused them in filthy language. The petitioner had also attacked him with his
hands and he threatened him with dire consequences. After completion of
investigation, the first respondent filed a final report for the offences under
Section 294(b), 448, 427, 323 and 506(1) of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13184 of 2020
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the shop belongs to one Jeyarani, who is the petitioner's sister and it was
renovated by the defacto complainant at the instigation of the petitioner's
sister. The petitioner's sister is claiming the subject property on the strength
of the Will executed by their father. In this regard, already a Probate OP is
contested by the petitioner and pending in OP.No.1 of 2020, on the file of the
learned First Additional District Court, Madurai. The said complaint has been
lodged only at the instigation of the petitioner's sister to create a rival claim.
Further, he submitted that there is a delay in registration of FIR, though the
crime taken place on 23.11.2019, on the same day itself the second respondent
had lodged the complaint, the first respondent had registered the case only on
13.01.2020, that too, without any explanation for the delay of 50 days. Infact,
for the very same occurrence, the petitioner had also lodged a complaint and
he was issued with CSR.No.341 of 2019, which is in the nature of civil
dispute. Likewise, on the complaint received from the second respondent, the
first respondent had issued CSR.No.340 of 2019, which is in the nature of
wordy quarrel. However, the complaint lodged by the second respondent had
been registered in Crime No.22 of 2020 and the complaint lodged by the
petitioner was not considered by the first respondent. Further, he would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13184 of 2020
submit that no offence is made out even according to the case of the
prosecution. The petitioner entered into the shop and shouted at the defacto
complainant. Therefore, offence under Section 294(b) will not attract as
against the petitioner, since it is not a public place. So far as, Section 323 of
IPC is concerned, the defacto complainant did not sustain any injury and he
never went to any hospital for any treatment. Even as per the charge sheet, no
damage was recorded by the first respondent.
4.The learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent would
submit that there is a specific allegation as against the petitioner to attract the
offence under Sections 294(b), 448, 427, 323 and 506(1) of IPC. The second
respondent lodged a complaint on the very date of occurrence, however, the
first respondent had registered the case only on 13.01.2020, for which, the
second respondent cannot be victimized for the registration of belated FIR.
5.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and the
learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13184 of 2020
6.For the complaint, dated 23.11.2019, lodged by the second
respondent, the first respondent had registered an FIR on 13.01.2020, for the
offences under Sections 294(b), 448, 427, 323 and 506(1) of IPC in Crime
No.22 of 2020 and for the very same occurrence, the petitioner had lodged a
complaint and he was issued with CSR No.341 of 2019 and no FIR has been
registered sofar. Though the second respondent had stated that the petitioner
had damaged the serial bulbs to the tune of Rs.2,000/-, there is absolutely no
evidence to prove the said statement. Infact, the first respondent had filed a
final report and which would reveal that the value of the property damaged is
zero(Nil).
7.Admittedly, while the second respondent and other staffs were in the
shop, which was under renovation, the petitioner had entered into the shop
and scolded them in filthy language. Therefore, the offence under Section
294(b) will not attract as against the petitioner.
8.In this regard, it is relevant to extract the provision under Section
294(b) of IPC, which reads as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13184 of 2020
"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."
9.It is relevant to rely 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
consequences when he dashed the defacto
complainant. The entire allegations are trivial in
nature. Further, to attract the offence under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13184 of 2020
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.”
10.That apart, already the Will executed in favour of his sister is under
probate in O.PNo.1 of 2020, on the file of the learned First Additional District
Court, Madurai. Therefore, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.307 of 2020
cannot be sustained as against the petitioner and the same is quashed.
Accordingly, the criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
05.04.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
lr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13184 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lr
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,
Thirunagar Police Station,
Madurai City.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13184 of 2020
05.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
