Madras High Court
A.Ashok vs The Inspector Of Police on 28 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.Nos.18382 & 20382 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 28.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.18382 & 20382 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.7182 of 2020
1. A.Ashok
2. E.Praveen Babu ... Petitioners in both
Crl.O.Ps.
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police
Mayiladuthurai Police Station,
Mayiladuthurai – 609 001.
2. R.Balu
S/o. Rajarathanam,
Head Constable,
Mayiladuthurai Police Station,
Mayiladuthurai – 609 001.
(Crime No.533 of 2019) ... Respondents in Crl.O.P.
No.18382 of 2020
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam – 600 001.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Mayiladuthurai Division,
Mayiladuthurai – 609 001.
3. The Inspector of Police
Mayiladuthurai Police Station,
Mayiladuthurai – 609 001 .... Respondents in Crl.O.P.
No.20382 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18382 & 20382 of 2020
Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.18382 of 2020: Criminal Original Petitions filed under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records relating to the
proceedings in Crime No.533 of 2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police,
Mayiladuthurai and quash the same.
Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.20382 of 2020: Criminal Original Petitions filed under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to direct the thrid respondent herein to register
the complaint of the petitioners dated 10.01.2020 and investigate the same in
accordance with law and file a FIR within the time fixed by this Court.
For Petitioners in
both Crl.O.Ps. : Mr.M.A.Aruneshe
For Mr.M.T.Arunan
For Respondents in
both Crl.O.Ps. : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
COMMON ORDER
Crl.O.P.No.18382 of 2020 :-
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.533 of
2019 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections
294(b), 352, 353, 506(2) of IPC and Section 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act, 1984, as against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18382 & 20382 of 2020
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.12.2019, when the police
personnel viz., the second respondent herein was on duty inside the Kamarajar
bus stand, Mayiladuthurai, three persons were travelled in a motor cycle.
Therefore, the petitioners were asked by the police personnel about triples for
which, they scolded the said police personnel with filthy language and also
attacked him. They also damaged some articles. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that
the first petitioner is the student and the second petitioner is working in a tyre
trading company at Mayiladuthurai as Manager and he is in-charge of trading
the tyres in the above said company. While being so, on 11.12.2019, the second
petitioner went to Mayiladuthurai bus stand to pick up new tyres sent from
Chidambaram through Jahir Hussain bus service. He parked his two wheeler at
a shop opposite to the police outpost of the first respondent police station.
3.1. He further submitted that on noticing the parking of the vehicle,
the second respondent came to the second petitioner and scolded him with
filthy language. He also threatened that he would arrest him if the vehicle
parked there. He also assaulted the second petitioner on his feet. In the said
quarrel, the second petitioner's spectacles were broken. The said incident was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18382 & 20382 of 2020
recorded by the first petitioner in his mobile phone. Therefore, the second
respondent caught hold the first petitioner and abused both the petitioners in
filthy languages. Thereafter, the second respondent had taken both the
petitioners to Police Station and registered a case as against both the
petitioners, as if they came on a motor cycle in triples and assaulted the second
respondent.
3.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further
submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed
any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first
respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 533 of 2019 for the offences
under Sections 294(b), 352, 353, 506(2) of IPC and Section 3(1) of Prevention
of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, as against the petitioners. Hence he
prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the
respondents would submit that after completion of investigation, the first
respondent filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Mayiladuthurai and the same is not yet taken on file. Hence, he prayed for
dismissal of the present petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18382 & 20382 of 2020
5. Heard Mr.M.A.Aruneshe, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
appearing for the respondents.
6. It is seen that after registration of FIR, the petitioners were brought
to remand before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mayiladuthurai, and the
learned Magistrate recorded the petitioners' statement on their remand request
that the accused 1 & 2 produced before her and perused the records. A1 had
swelling in his left hand and A2 had injuries in his left forehead, swelling in his
left shoulder. Both told that the police assaulted them. Further recorded that on
perusal of FIR and remand request, the police narrated that the petitioners were
coming in triples but they mentioned only two accused viz., the petitioners and
not mentioned about the third person. More over, the damaged things also not
mentioned in the FIR. Therefore, the learned Magistrate remanded the
petitioners, only for the offences under Sections 294(b), 352, 353, 506, 427 of
IPC.
7. After the above said occurrence, the petitioners lodged complaint
before the State Human Rights Commission in SHRC Case Nos.22 & 326 of
2020 and the said Commission conducted detailed enquiry and by an order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18382 & 20382 of 2020
dated 10.05.2021 concluded as follows :-
“25. Considering the oral and documentary
evidence and also the arguments of both the parties this
Commission is of the considered opinion that the
complainant proved the allegations stated in the complaint
that on 11.12.2019, around 11.50 am, when the P.W.1 went
to Mayiladuthurai bus stand to pick up the new tyres and
parked his motorcycle at a shop opposite to the police
outpost in the bus sand and at that time, the first
respondent came there and threatened that he would arrest
him for parking the vehicle inside the bus stand and
slapped him and the incident was recorded by the
complainant Ashok in his mobile and on seeing this, the 1st
respondent abused both of them in filthy language and took
them in an auto to the police station and registered a false
complaint against them as if, they came on a motorcycle in
triples and assaulted the 1st respondent and they were
beaten up by the respondents severely and they sustained
injuries and took treatment for 6 days as inpatients.
Therefore, the action on the part of the respondents is not
in accordance with law and hence this Commission holds
that the respondents had violated the human rights of the
PW2 and Ashok. This point is answered accordingly.
26. Point No.2:- While answering the Point No.1,
this Commission has held that the respondents had violated
the human rights of the Complainant. Hence, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18382 & 20382 of 2020
Commission is of the considered view that the P.W.1 and
Ashok are entitled to receive compensation for the
violation of human rights from the respondents and fixing
of Rs.1,00,000/- each as compensation to the P.W.1 and
Ashok would be fair and reasonable and would meet the
ends of justice. Hence, this Commission holds that the
P.W.1 Praveenbabu and Ashok are entitled to get
Rs.1,00,000/- each from the respondents and to initiate
disciplinary action against them. This Point is answered
accordingly.
27. In the result, this Commission recommends
as follows :-
(i) The Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay a
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each
to the Complainants Praveenbabu and Ashok (Totally
Rupees two lakhs only) within one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Recommendation and the
Government of Tamil Nadu may recover Rs.50,000/- each
from the respondents 1 to 4 (50,000 X4 = 2,00,000)
(ii) This Commission also recommends to initiate
disciplinary action against the respondents 1 to 4 as per
the Rules.”
8. The State Human Rights Commission categorically held that the
respondents foisted false case as against the petitioners as if, they came on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18382 & 20382 of 2020
motorcycle in triples and assaulted the second respondent herein. In fact, the
respondents had beaten up them, for which the petitioners sustained grievous
injuries and admitted in the hospital for six days. The act of the respondents is
not in accordance with law and they violated the human rights of the petitioners
herein. Further the respondents and Sub Inspector of Police of the first
respondent Police Station were directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
each to the petitioners herein.
9. Therefore, it is made clear that when the second petitioner was
parking his motorcycle, the second respondent herein interfered with him and
had taken him to the Police Station. Even according to the case of the
respondents that the petitioners came on motorcycle in triples. But there is no
third person in the FIR and there is absolutely no whisper about the person who
was sat as third person in motorcycle. It is also not mentioned in the FIR about
the damaged things. The said fact clearly recorded by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, while the petitioners were produced for remand.
10. Even assuming that the alleged occurrence was taken place, there
is no specific averment as against the petitioners to attract the offence under
Sections 294(b), 352, 353, 506(2) of IPC and Section 3(1) of Prevention of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18382 & 20382 of 2020
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 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 punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three months, or with fine, or with both."
11. Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioners
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 petitioners, 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
petitioners annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence
under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out. 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 :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18382 & 20382 of 2020
"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
petitioners.
12. Insofar as the offence under Section 352 of IPC is concerned
grave and sudden provocation will not mitigate the punishment for an offence
under this Section. In this regard it is relevant to extract the Section 352 of IPC
as follows :-
"352. Punishment for assault or criminal force
otherwise than on grave provocation —Whoever assaults or
uses criminal force to any person otherwise than on grave and
sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five
hundred rupees, or with both."
On perusal of the FIR, no criminal force was used by the petitioners on the
second respondent. Therefore, the offence under Section 352 of IPC would not
attract as against the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18382 & 20382 of 2020
13. 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, there
is no averment to attract the offence under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C. Therefore,
the impugned complaint is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and it
cannot be sustained as against the petitioner.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.18382
of 2020 stands allowed and the F.I.R. in Crime No.533 of 2019 on the file of
the first respondent is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
Crl.O.P.No.20382 of 2020 :-
15. This petition has been filed to direct the third respondent herein to
register the complaint of the petitioners dated 10.01.2020 and investigate the
same in accordance with law and file a FIR within the time fixed by this Court.
16. It is seen that the petitioners have lodged complaint dated
10.01.2020 before the District Collector, Nagapattinam and the same has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18382 & 20382 of 2020
forwarded to the first respondent viz., the Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam, for taking appropriate action as against the police personnel.
Since the first respondent did not take any action, the petitioners filed this
present petition with the above said prayer.
17. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the
respondents submitted that on receipt of the complaint from the District
Collector, Nagapattinam, the first respondent conducted detailed enquiry and
closed the same by closure report dated 24.02.2021. He also produced the
closure report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai,
dated 24.02.2021.
18. Recording the said submission, this Criminal Original Petition in
Crl.O.P.No.20382 of 2020 is closed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to
file private complaint in the manner known to law, if so advised.
28.06.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18382 & 20382 of 2020
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam – 600 001.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Mayiladuthurai Division,
Mayiladuthurai – 609 001.
3. The Inspector of Police
Mayiladuthurai Police Station,
Mayiladuthurai – 609 001.
4. R.Balu
S/o. Rajarathanam,
Head Constable,
Mayiladuthurai Police Station,
Mayiladuthurai – 609 001.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18382 & 20382 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
Crl.O.P.Nos.18382 & 20382 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.7182 of 2020
28.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
