Madras High Court
Priyadarshini vs The State By on 20 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.8950 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 20.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.8950 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.4197 of 2020
Priyadarshini ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State by
The Inspector of Police
Villianur Police Station,
Puducherry – 605 110.
2. M.Kannapiran ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records and quash the case in FIR No.409 of 2020 on the
file of the first respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.John Sathyan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.V.Balamurugane
Public Prosecutor (Pondy)
For R2 : Mr.S.I.Sharukumar
For Mr.K.Elangovan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 10
Crl.O.P.No.8950 of 2020
ORDER
The petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.409 of 2020
on the file of the first respondent, registered for the offences under Sections
294(b), 427, 448 and 506(ii) of IPC r/w. Section 34 of IPC, as against the
petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.06.2020, when the
defacto complainant was at home, his brother-in-law viz., the first accused
herein along with the petitioner and other 20 persons came to his home and
demanded a sum of Rs.3 crores, which was entrusted to him. It is further
alleged that when the defacto complainant told that the earlier complaint lodged
against him is pending before the Central Crime Branch and asked to co-
operate with the enquiry, the first accused along with the petitioner entered into
the bedroom and threatened the defacto complainant that they would murder
him and family members. They also damaged the CCTV camera fixed in the
defacto complainant's home. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the second respondent lodged the present complaint as a counter blast to the
complaint dated 18.05.2020, lodged by the first accused. As per the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8950 of 2020
complaint, the first accused entered into a land deal with one Mohammed Ali,
Karaikal and he paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as advance and negotiated to purchase
100 acres of adjacent land which was orally agreed. The first accused had
sought advances from the prospective buyers as he had agreed to pay an
advance of Rs. 3 crores. Further the prospective buyers asked the first accused
to come to Chennai on 11.05.2020. At that juncture, the second respondent/
defacto complainant called the first accused and he was taking about the safety
issues while traveling with money. Therefore, the second respondent readily
agreed to help the first accused.
3.1. While be so, on 11.05.2020, the first accused and the second
respondent met in Aarya's Hotel, Thindivanam and the second respondent
drove his car and reached Chennai. A sum of Rs.3 crores given by the
prospective buyers was loaded in the car driven by the second respondent in a
suitcase and a handbag and the second respondent insisted that he traveled in
his car and followed him. Accordingly, the first accused and another followed
the car driven by the second respondent till the Office of the Director General
of Police, Kamaraj Road. Thereafter second respondent got disconnected and
could not be contacted. When the first accused was nearing Tindivanam, the
second respondent called him and asked to come to his house. Thereafter, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8950 of 2020
second respondent informed that while he was driving, he was chased by police
and in order to escape, he dumped the money at Greenways Road and
disconnected the phone. Therefore, the first accused lodged complaint in which
the second respondent had taken full responsibility and assured to settle the
money. Accordingly, the petitioner being wife of the first accused went to the
house of the second respondent and the second respondent and his wife
requested a couple of days to settle the entire amount. In fact, the second
respondent had given written undertaking in the presence of witnesses, thereby
he would settle the entire amount.
3.2. In pursuant to the said complaint dated 18.05.2020, it was referred to
The Superintendant of Police, Villupuram. In fact, the first accused and the
second respondent were appeared before the Superintendant of Police,
Villupuram for enquiry. During the enquiry, the second respondent admitted
that he had given money to one Mohan, Ariyur, Puducherry. Therefore, the
Superintendant of Police, Villupuram, suggested that the parties being relatives
could resolve the dispute through negotiations. In pursuant to the said
suggestion, the petitioner along with the first accused and 20 others went to the
house of the second respondent, where the second respondent abused and
attempted to assault the first accused. Thereafter, the impugned FIR has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8950 of 2020
registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 427, 448 and 506(ii) of IPC
r/w. Section 34 of IPC of IPC.
3.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
even according to the defacto complainant, no offence is made out as alleged by
the prosecution. The present complain is noting but counter blast to the earlier
complaint lodged by the petitioner's husband dated 18.05.2020. Hence he prays
to quash the FIR in Crime No.409 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/defacto
complainant would submit that there are specific allegations leveled as against
all the accused persons and it is only FIR and it is not an encyclopedia. Now the
investigation is almost completed and as such at this juncture, quashment of the
FIR is nothing but clear abuse of process of Court and prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor (pondy) appearing for the first
respondent/police submitted that totally there are three accused on the
complaint lodged by the second respondent which registered in Crime No.409
of 2020 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 427, 448 and 506(ii) of IPC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8950 of 2020
r/w. Section 34 of IPC of IPC. The second accused viz., the petitioner herein
alone filed this petition and the investigation is stayed insofar as the petitioner
alone. Insofar as the other accused persons are concerned investigation is
completed and laid charge sheet and the same has been taken cognizance in
C.C.No.473 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III,
Puducherry, and it is pending for trial.
6. Heard Mr.R.John Sathyan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr.V.Balamurugane, learned Public Prosecutor (Pondy) appearing
for the first respondent and Mr.S.I.Sharukumar, learned counsel appearing for
the second respondent.
7. It is seen that there are totally three accused and the petitioner is
arrayed as second accused. The reading of FIR itself revealed that the first
accused and his relatives along with 20 others came to the defacto
complainant's house. Thereafter, the first accused demanded to repay a sum of
Rs.3 crores which was paid by him. The second respondent replied that, in this
regard already the first accused lodged complaint, which is pending on the file
of the Central Crime Branch, Chennai and therefore requested the first accused
to co-operate for the enquiry. At that juncture, the first accused and others
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8950 of 2020
trespassed into the house of the second respondent and scolded him with filthy
language. They also threatened with dire consequences.
8. Admittedly, the first accused and others had visited the house of the
second respondent. Further the first accused and others were allowed to enter
into the house by the second respondent. Therefore, there is no question of
trespass, since the first accused and the second respondent are very close
relatives. The entire allegations are very bald and no specific allegations
leveled as against the petitioner. Even according to the second respondent the
first accused and other relatives and 20 friends were entered into the house.
Therefore, as against the petitoner there is no specific allegation to attract any
of the offences.
9. To attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there must be an
uttering of words to affect the person who lodged the complaint. In this regard
it is relevant to extract the Section 294(b) of IPC, as follows :-
"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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8950 of 2020
punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three months, or
with fine, or with both."
10. Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioner as
such to constitute the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there is no
averments and allegations. Further the charges do not show that on hearing the
obscene words, which were allegedly uttered by the petitioner, the witnesses
felt annoyed. No one has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed
and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the
petitioner annoyed others, it can not be said that the ingredients of the offence
under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out. 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8950 of 2020
petitioner. Therefore, the impugned complaint is nothing but clear abuse of
process of law and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the
FIR in Crime No.409 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent is hereby
quashed as against the petitioner alone. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
20.06.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
rts
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Villianur Police Station,
Puducherry – 605 110.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8950 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
Crl.O.P.No.8950 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.4197 of 2020
20.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
