Madras High Court
Alaguvel vs The State Rep. By on 29 June, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.19048 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.19048 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7584 & 7585 of 2020
Alaguvel ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Veeraganur Police Station,
Salem District.
2.Charles Mani ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying
to call for the records pending on the file of the learned Judicial magistrate,
No.1, Attur, Salem District in S.T.C.No.934 of 2020 and quash the criminal
proceedings.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : No appearance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
CRL.O.P.No.19048 of 2020
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
S.T.C.No.934 of 2020, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Attur, Salem District, registered in Crime No.171 of 2020, for the offences
punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was running a
Milk Company in the name and style of Arputha Milk Product Cilling Centre
at Thalaivasal. The 2nd respondent was working in the petitioner's Milk
Company as Supervisor for the past six years. During the course of the
business, the petitioner facing loss hence, the 2nd respondent helped him by
giving cash and 21 sovereigns of gold jewels to the petitioner. Thereafter, the
petitioner resigned his job and doing real estate business. While that been so,
the 2nd respondent approached the petitioner to return back his cash and jewels,
but the petitioner did not returned the same. On 03.03.2020 at about 04.00
p.m., when the 2nd respondent asked the petitioner to return the jewels and
cash, the petitioner scolded him with filthy language and assaulted him and
threatened him. Hence, the 2nd respondent escaped from there and went to his
Aunt's house at Salem and preferred a complaint before the 1st respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19048 of 2020
police on 05.06.2020. On receipt of the same, the respondent police registered
a case against the petitioner in Crime No.171 of 2020.
3. Heart both sides, and perused the materials available on record.
4. Admittedly, the occurrence was took place on 03.03.2020 at about
14.00 hrs, whereas the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent was only on
05.06.2020 at about 17.45 hrs. Further, there is absolutely no valid explanation
submitted by the de-facto complainant for the belated complaint.
5. On a perusal of the records, it revealed that there are no specific
averments and allegations to attract under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC.
The occurrence took place at the house of the de-facto complainant therefore,
the offence under Section 294(b) IPC cannot be attracted as against the
petitioner.
6. 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 :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19048 of 2020
"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."
7. 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.
8. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19048 of 2020
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 petitioner.
9. Insofar as the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C is concerned, to
attract the offence, threat and intention to cause an alarm are main ingredients.
The third ingredient is that the intention must be to cause any 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, subsequent to the main ingredients. Whereas in
the case on hand, even according to the case of the prosecution, the alleged
threats issued by the petitioner is only empty threats and they had no effect on
the complainant.
10. In this regard, It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court
made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014 in the case of Abdul Agis Vs. State
through the Inspector of Police, which reads as follows:-
“7.It is seen from the statements recorded
under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. of the second
respondent/ defacto complainant that it does not
contain any obscene words, which were uttered by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19048 of 2020
petitioner herein and the entire allegations are very
simple in nature. It is also seen from the statement of
one Uthami, that the petitioner threatened the defacto
complainant with dire consequences when he dashed
the defacto complainant. The entire allegations are
trivial in nature. Further, to attract the offence under
Section 506(i) of I.P.C., there was a threatening only by
words. As pointed by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, the threat should be a real one and not
just a mere word when the petition uttering does not
exactly mean what he says and also when the person to
whom threat is launched does not feel threatened
actually. Therefore, the offences under Sections 294(b)
and 506(i) of I.P.C. are not made out as against the
petitioner herein and also the entire criminal
proceedings is clear an abuse of process of Court.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the entire
proceedings.”
11. In view of the above, the proceedings in S.T.C.No.934 of 2020,
cannot be sustained as against the petitioner and it is nothing but clear abuse of
process of law. Hence, it is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19048 of 2020
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the
proceedings in S.T.C.No.934 of 2020, on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Attur, Salem District, is hereby quashed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
29.06.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
ata
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Veeraganur Police Station,
Salem District.
2. The Public Prosecutor
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19048 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ata
CRL.O.P.No.19048 of 2020
29.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
