Madras High Court
Devaki vs The Inspector Of Police on 7 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1642 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07/04/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1642 of 2019
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.848 of 2019
Devaki : Petitioner/A1
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Thanjavur Medical College Police Station,
Thanjavur,
(Crime No.514 of 2018) : R1/Complainant
2.P.Nathan : R2/De-facto complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to
the case in CC No.514 of 2018 on the file of the Thanjavur
Medical College Police Station, Thanjavur and cushy the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Guhan
For 1st Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.Kathiresa Perumal
(Legal Aid Counsel)
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1642 of 2019
O R D E R
This criminal original petition is filed seeking
quashment of the case in CC No.514 of 2018 on the file of
the Thanjavur Medical College Police Station, Thanjavur.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The de-facto complainant, who is the second respondent
herein lodged a complaint with the following allegations:-
He purchased the property measuring 1320 sq. feet from
Tamil Nadu Housing Board. When he visited the property, on
12/11/2008 at about 10.00 am, the property was found
occupied illegally by one Devika. Joining hands with
identified persons, started abusing him in filthy language
and criminally intimidated. On the basis of the complain
given by the de-fact complainant, a case in Crime No.514 of
2018 for the offences under sections 442, 294(b) and 506(i)
IPC was registered against the accused persons.
3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has
been filed by the petitioner/A1 solely on the ground that
there is a delay of two days in preferring the complaint
and it is purely a civil dispute between the parties, since
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1642 of 2019
she filed a suit in O.S No.126 of 2007 on the file of the
Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Thanjavur,
for specific performance against the second respondent
herein and that was dismissed. Against which, A.S No.242 of
2009 was filed before this court and the same is pending.
Pending the above said civil proceedings, this false
complaint stated to be filed. According to the petitioner,
even as per the allegation made in the FIR, the offences
under sections 442, 294(b) and 506(i)IPC do not attract
against her.
4.Heard both sides.
5.During the course of argument, in spite of notice
has been repeatedly sent to the second respondent, it could
not be served. So this court, by order, dated 02/03/2022
appointed one Mr.Kathiresa Perumal, as Legal Aid Counsel
for the second respondent to assist the case. Upon which
also, the matter was heard. It is further submitted by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the time
of argument that even though, O.S No.126 of 2007, which was
filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional
District Judge, Thanjavur, she filed Appeal in A.S No.242
of 2009 before this court and that was also dismissed for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1642 of 2019
default. Later, he filed a petition to restore the suit.
It is also submitted that in the meantime, the matter has
been compromised between the petitioner and the 2nd
respondent as per the information furnished by the advocate
on record before the trial court.
6.As per the allegations made in the FIR, the offence
said to have been taken place, on 14/11/2018. It appears
that even after a lapse of three years, the investigation
has not been completed and final report has not been filed
before the concerned court. Even though counter has been
filed by the respondent police and the copy of the final
report has been circulated before this court, it has not
been presented before the concerned court, probably because
of the stay order that has been passed by this court for
filing the final report, by order, dated 01/02/2019. So the
question of limitation may not arise.
7.As per the draft final report, the petitioner
alleged to have committed the offence under sections 442,
294(b) and 506(i) IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1642 of 2019
8.Now let us go back to the complaint, wherein it has
been simply mentioned that on the particular date of
occurrence, when he visited the property, this petitioner
along with three identified persons, abused him in filthy
language. They also stated to have criminally intimidated
him.
9.Section 294(b) IPC reads as follows:-
“(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.”
10.In the facts and circumstances of the case and in
the light of the allegation made in the FIR, it is seen
that section 294(b)IPC may not be attracted. No-where it
has been stated that the petitioner abused the de-facto
complainant in filthy language in the public place or in
the eye of public, after annoyance of the neighbours.
Absolutely, there is no averment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1642 of 2019
11.Similarly with regard to section 506(i) IPC, only
bald allegation has been made to the effect that he was
criminally intimidated.
12.Section 503 IPC reads as follows:-
“503—Whoever threatens another with
any injury to his person, reputation or
property, or to the person or reputation of
any one in whom that person is interested,
with intent to cause alarm to that person,
or to cause that 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, as the means of avoiding
the execution of such threat, commits
criminal intimidation.”
13.Time and again, it has been held by this court
through various judgments, mere utterance of words are not
sufficient to attract the ingredients of section 503 IPC
and the threat must be a real one and the threat caused
fear of death in the mind. Absolutely, there is no such
averment in the complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1642 of 2019
14.Another factual aspect is that the petitioner is
about 73 years old lady and the de-facto complainant also
aged about 69 years. Considering the advance age of the
petitioner, I am of the considered view that the allegation
made against the petitioner is exaggerated one and in the
light of the pending of the civil suit, such a complaint
has been given.
15.With regard to section 442 IPC also, in whose
possession, the property was available, no material has
been collected during the course of investigation. The
documents with regard to the suit are also not available.
16.In the light of the above said development and the
alleged compromise between the second respondent and the
petitioner as well as the factual issue, I am of the
considered view that the petitioner need not be subjected
to undergo the trial process.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1642 of 2019
17.In the result, this criminal original petition is
allowed. The impugned Crime No.514 of 2018 on the file of
the 1st respondent police is hereby quashed as against this
petitioner. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition
is closed.
07/04/2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
er
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1642 of 2019
To,
1.The Inspector of Police,
Thanjavur Medical College Hospital Police Station,
Thanjavur.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1642 of 2019
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
er
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1642 of 2019
07/04/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
