Madras High Court
Muthu @ Masanamuthu vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14638 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14638 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.6903 of 2020
Muthu @ Masanamuthu ... Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
1.State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Kottar Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.377 of 2018). ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Jeyakumar ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.377 of 2018 on
the file of the first respondent and quash the same as against the
petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Susi Kumar
For R – 1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R – 2 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14638 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR
in Crime No.377 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent
registered for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of
I.P.C.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 11.05.2017, the
petitioner's brother, who is serving as a Sub-Inspector of Police, said
to have abused and made serious life threat and also damaged the
second respondent's car, who is a practising advocate. In connection
with the crime, the second respondent lodged a complaint against
the petitioner's brother and now, he is facing trial. While being so,
on 30.08.2018 at about 09.30 a.m, the second respondent received
a phone call from the petitioner, in which the petitioner abused him
using filthy language and also made a serious life threat stating that
he should withdraw the case against his brother, else he will kill him
by engaging rowdy elements. Hence, the second respondent lodged
the complaint.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14638 of 2020
respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent.
4.On a perusal of the entire allegations revealed that the
petitioner threatened the second respondent through phone
repeatedly. Therefore, there is no ingredient to make out the
offence as against the petitioner with regard to the offence under
Section 294(b) of I.P.C. Accordingly, it should be taken place in the
public place and also mere utterance of obscene words are not
sufficient, but there must be a further proof to establish that it was
to the annoyance to others, which is completely lacking in this case.
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."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14638 of 2020
Admittedly, Section 294(b) of I.P.C is not attracted as against the
petitioner.
5.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."
The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case and
the allegations are frivolous in nature and the petitioner need not go
for ordeal of trial.
6.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, according to the
second respondent, the petitioner threatened him over phone and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14638 of 2020
nowhere it is stated that the uttering does not cause annoyance to
others and thereby the said offence also not made out as against
the petitioner.
7.In view of the above discussions, the F.I.R cannot be
sustained as against the petitioner and it is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a
sequel, the FIR in Crime No.377 of 2018 on the file of the first
respondent is quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
08.04.2022
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes / No
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14638 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
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,
Kottar Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Order made in
Crl.O.P(MD)No.14638 of 2020
08.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
