Subaganesh vs The State Rep. By Its
2022 Latest Caselaw 12144 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 12144 Mad
Judgement Date : 7 July, 2022

Madras High Court

Subaganesh vs The State Rep. By Its on 7 July, 2022

                                                                              Crl.O.P.No.20581 of 2020

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 07.07.2022

                                                           CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                  Crl.O.P.No. 20581 of 2020

                     Subaganesh                                               ...Petitioner
                                                              -Vs-
                     1. The State Rep. by its
                     Inspector of Police,
                     Virugambakkam Police Station,
                     T.Nagar, Chennai.

                     2. A.Ravi Varma                                  ... Respondents
                     Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
                     Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and to quash the FIR in Crime
                     No.568 of 2020 on the file of the 1st respondent at the Virugambakkam
                     Police Station, Chennai.


                                        For Petitioner     : Mr.G.L.Gokul Ram
                                        For R1             : Mr.A.Gopinath
                                                             Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
                                        For R2             : Mr.G.S.Mohan

                                                             ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.568 of

2020 on the file of the 1st respondent for the offence punishable under

Section 294(b) of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.20581 of 2020

entered into the Association premises to attend the Independence Day

function and after the function he went away to another function.

Thereafter, the accused persons came to the premise of the Association

and scolded the second respondent in filthy language. Hence, the

complaint.

3. On receipt of the complaint from the second respondent, the

first respondent registered a F.I.R in Crime No. 568 of 2022 for the

offence punishable under Section 294 (b) of IPC. There are totally four

accused, in which, the petitioner is arrayed as A3.

4. A perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that the petitioner is the

President of Chinnathirai Association. There was an allegation in

respect of expenditure incurred for the cultural programme. In this

regard, on 10.11.2019, a General Body Meeting was convened.

However, since no confidence motion brought up against the second

respondent, was voted in the negative, he continued as a President of the

Association. Thereafter, the petitioner had taken action to expel the two

members and issued show cause notice. On receipt of the said show

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.20581 of 2020

cause notice on 15.08.2020, when the second respondent came to the

Association premise to celebrate the Independence Day and went away,

this petitioner and other accused persons went to the Association and

scolded the second respondent in a filthy language. They also defamed

his name before the other members.

5. Admittedly, the second respondent was not present at the time

of occurrence and the entire complaint is based on “hear say”. That

apart, there no is specific averments as against all the accused persons

that they have scolded the second respondent in a filthy language. The

entire allegations are vague and bald allegations as against the

petitioners. Further, the alleged occurrence took place on 15.08.2020,

whereas, the complaint was lodged on 25.08.2020. There is no

explanation forthcoming for the belated complaint lodged by the second

respondent.

6. In this regard, 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.20581 of 2020

was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case."

The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case and

therefore, the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not at all attracted

as against the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned

complaint is nothing but a clear abuse of process of law and it cannot be

sustained as against the petitioner.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the

proceedings in F.I.R. in Crime No.568 of 2020, on the file of the first

respondent police is hereby quashed and accordingly, this Criminal

Original Petition stands allowed.

07.07.2022 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Lpp To

1. Inspector of Police, Virugambakkam Police Station, T.Nagar, Chennai.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.