Madras High Court
Fatima vs The State Represented By on 30 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5828 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5828 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.4118 of 2022
1.Fatima
(wrongly mentioned as Fathima Babu
instead of Fatima in F.I.R)
2.S.Raja ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 8
Vs.
1.The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Thoothukudi SIPCOT Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(In Crime No.140 of 2018). ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.M.Seenivasan ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned First
Information Report in Crime No.140 of 2018 on the file of the first
respondent Police Station and quash the same as against the
petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.Henri Tiphagne
For R – 1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5828 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
impugned First Information Report in Crime No.140 of 2018 on the
file of the first respondent Police Station for the offences under
Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) of I.P.C and Section 4 of
the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and
Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage
and Loss) Act, 1992 as against the petitioners.
2.There are totally 11 accused named accused and others, in
which the petitioners are arraigned as A.1 and A.8.
3.The case of the prosecution is that on 12.04.2018 when the
Sterlite company workers were about to proceed on a bus to give a
petition to the District Collector regarding the company, the
petitioners and other accused persons indulged in criminal
intimidation against them and also damaged the glass of the bus.
Hence, the case has been registered.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first
respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5828 of 2022
5.On a perusal of the materials available on record revealed
that the petitioners and others have been engaged in protest
against the establishment and continued running of the Sterlite
Industry for the past several years. The first petitioner worked as an
Associate Professor and retired from service and she is also an
environmental activist. The second petitioner has been serving as
an elected office-bearer of the Tamil Nadu Vannigar Sangam in
Thoothukudi District for many years and he has also been engaged
in representing the Sangam in many anti-Sterlite protest activities
for its closure. The petitioners have been agitating the Sterlite issue
in a democratic manner by way of approaching Court and other
peaceful protest. The first petitioner is being a woman, the case
registered for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act would not attract as
against her. Further, admittedly the petitioners are agitators against
the Sterlite company and this is the only reason for implicating them
in the impugned F.I.R registered in Crime No.140 of 2018. Even as
per the impugned F.I.R, there are no ingredients to attract the
offences under Section 294(b) and 506(ii) of I.P.C as against the
petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5828 of 2022
6.In this regard, it is relevant to extract the provision under
Section 294(b) of IPC, which reads as under:
"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."
Admittedly, Section 294(b) of I.P.C is not attracted as against the
petitioners.
7.It is also 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."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5828 of 2022
The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case and
the allegations are frivolous in nature and the petitioners need not
go for ordeal of trial.
8.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.
9.Insofar as the other offences are concerned, there are no
ingredients to attract the offences as against the petitioners.
10.In view of the above discussions, this Criminal Original
Petition is allowed and the FIR in Crime No.140 of 2018 on the file
of the first respondent is quashed. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
30.03.2022
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes / No
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5828 of 2022
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 Inspector of Police,
Thoothukudi SIPCOT Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5828 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.O.P(MD)No.5828 of 2022
30.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
