Madras High Court
Pratheesh @ Prathish vs State Represented By on 29 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1411 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1411 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.1050 & 1051 of 2022
1.Pratheesh @ Prathish
2.Murugan @ Balamurugan
3.Nagarajan @ Nagarajan N
4.Durai @ Duraisamy ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4
Vs.
1.State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Kottar Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
(In Crime No.219 of 2016). ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.S.Sundar,
Head Constable,
Kottar Police Station,
Kanyakumari District. ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.51 of
2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil
and quash the same in respect of the petitioners as illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Anto Prince
For R – 1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1411 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.51 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, as against the petitioners.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 29.03.2016, when the
second respondent, who was serving as Head Constable along with
one Home Guard were on police patrol, at about 11.00 p.m., at
Pataslayanvilai Junction, the accused persons had restrained and
abused the defacto complainant and thereby threatened him with
dire consequences. Further, they also restrained him from
discharging their official duty.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that it is not at all possible to believe that the police officer,
who was accompanied by a Home Guard, was abused, assaulted
and threatened with dire consequences that too in the junction.
Originally, on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, a
case has been registered in Crime No.219 of 2016 for the offences
under Sections 294(b), 383, 353 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. Subsequently,
after completion of investigation filed final report for the offences
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1411 of 2022
under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. He further
submitted that no offence is made out as against the petitioner,
since no ingredients are available to attract the same. In support of
his contention, he also relied upon various Judgments.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the
first respondent.
5.On a perusal of the statement recorded under Section
161(3) of Cr.P.C and the charge-sheet filed as against the
petitioners revealed that they were charged for the offences under
Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.
6.Insofar as the offence under Section 353 of I.P.C is
concerned, the essential ingredients to attract the offence under
Section 353 of I.P.C are that the person accused of the said charge
should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with
intent to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his
duty as public servant. On a perusal of the entire materials
produced along with the charge-sheet, it appears that no force was
used by the petitioners to commit such an offence. That apart, there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1411 of 2022
is absolutely nothing on record to show that the petitioners either
assaulted the second respondent or used criminal force to prevent
that the second respondent from discharging his official duty.
Therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 of I.P.C
are not made out.
7.The Honourable Apex Court in the case of Manik Taneja
and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in
2015 (7) SCC 423, held as follows:-
“A reading of the above provision shows that the
essential ingredients to attract the offence under Section
353 of I.P.C are that the person accused of the said charge
should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal
force with intent to prevent or deter the public servant from
discharging his duty as public servant. By perusing the
materials available on record, it appears that no force was
used by the appellants to commit such an offence. There is
absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants
either assaulted the second respondent or used criminal
force to prevent that the second respondent from
discharging his official duty. Taking the uncontroverted
allegations, in our view, the ingredients of the offence under
Section 353 of I.P.C are not made out”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1411 of 2022
8.Insofar as the offence under Section 294(b) of I.P.C is
concerned, the essential ingredients that intended to prevent
obscene acts being performed in public to the annoyance of the
public at large. Annoyance to others is an essential ingredient to the
offence under the Section. On a perusal of the materials produced
by the prosecution, there are no traces for attributing the
annoyance to others. That apart, there is no statement that the
alleged act caused annoyance to others. Hence, there is no
allegation to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of I.P.C.
9.It is 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1411 of 2022
10.Insofar as the offence under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C is
concerned, the prosecution is to prove that threatening a person
with any injury, to his person, reputation or property, to the person
or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, the
threat must be with intent, to cause alarm to that person, to cause
that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do so the
means of avoiding the execution of such threat and to cause that
person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to
do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
11.It is relevant to rely upon the Judgment of the Allahabad
High Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar Singh and others Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in
Manu/UP/4155/2017, wherein the Allahabad High Court has held
as follows:-
“It has been consistently held by the Honourable
Apex Court and also by various High Court that before an
offence under this Section is made out, it must be
established that the accused had an intention to cause an
alarm to the complainant. In order to attract the
ingredients of Section 506 of I.P.C, the intention of the
accused must be to cause alarm to the victim. Mere
expression of words without any intention to cause alarm
would not suffice. Mere vague and bald allegations that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1411 of 2022
the accused threatened the victim with dire consequences
is not sufficient to attract the provisions under Section
506 I.P.C. The threat should be a real one and not just a
mere word when the person uttering does not exactly
mean what he says and also when the person against
whom the threat is launched, does not feel threatened
actually. It should appear that the complainant was
feeling for his life.”
12.In the case on hand, there is no sufficient ingredients to
attract the offence under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C, except the vague
and bald allegations of criminal intimidation. The entire allegations
are nothing but abuse of process of law.
13.In view of the above discussions, this Criminal Original
Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.51 of 2017 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, is quashed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
29.03.2022
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes / No
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1411 of 2022
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 Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Nagercoil.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kottar Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Order made in
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1411 of 2022
29.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
