Madras High Court

Hemalatha @ Latha vs State By The Inspector Of Police on 9 September, 2022

                                                               Crl.O.P.Nos.16934, 16938, 16941 & 16943 of 2022


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED 09.09.2022

                                                            CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                    Crl.O.P.No.16934, 16938, 16941 & 16943 of 2022 and
                                     Crl.MP.Nos.10223, 10228, 10233 & 10235 of 2022

                     Crl.OP.No.16934 of 2022

                     Hemalatha @ Latha                                               ... Petitioner

                                                              Vs

                     1.State by the Inspector of Police,
                       H3 Police Station,
                       Tondiarpet, Chennai-81
                       (CC.No.2307 of 2019)

                     2.S.P.Rajasekar @ Rajesh                                        ... Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records for the charge sheet in CC.No.2307 of 2019 on XV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George, Town, Chennai and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Latha (party-in-person)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16934, 16938, 16941 & 16943 of 2022

For Respondents For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.G.Suresh

Crl.OP.No.16938 of 2022

Natarajan ... Petitioner

1.State by the Inspector of Police, H3 Police Station, Tondiarpet, Chennai-81 (CC.No.2307 of 2019)

2.S.P.Rajasekar @ Rajesh ... Respondents

                                        For Petitioner     : Mr.G.Natarajan (party-in-person)



                                        For Respondents
                                              For R1    : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
                                                          Additional Public Prosecutor
                                              For R2    : Mr.G.Suresh






https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.Nos.16934, 16938, 16941 & 16943 of 2022

Crl.OP.No.16941 of 2022

Rajeswari ... Petitioner

1.State by the Inspector of Police, H3 Police Station, Tondiarpet, Chennai-81 (CC.No.2307 of 2019)

2.S.P.Rajasekar @ Rajesh ... Respondents

                                        For Petitioner     : Mrs.Rajeswari (party-in-person)



                                        For Respondents
                                              For R1    : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
                                                          Additional Public Prosecutor
                                              For R2    : Mr.G.Suresh

                     Crl.OP.No.16943 of 2022

                     Gunasekaran                                                  ... Petitioner

                                                           Vs






https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.Nos.16934, 16938, 16941 & 16943 of 2022

1.State by the Inspector of Police, H3 Police Station, Tondiarpet, Chennai-81 (CC.No.2307 of 2019)

2.S.P.Rajasekar @ Rajesh ... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Gunasekaran (party-in-person)

For Respondents For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.G.Suresh

COMMON ORDER

These criminal original petitions have been filed to quash the

proceedings in CC.No.2307 of 2019 on XV Metropolitan Magistrate Court,

George, Town, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under

Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.60 of 2018, as against the

petitioners.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16934, 16938, 16941 & 16943 of 2022

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.12.2017 at about

11.00 a.m., the petitioners went to the house of the second respondent and

scolded him with filthy language and also threatened with dire

consequences after receipt of summons from the III Additional Family

Court, Chennai in the proceedings initiated by the defacto complainant for

divorce.

3. All the petitioners appeared in person before this Court and

submitted that no such occurrence happened on 27.12.2017. The summons

from the Family Court in the divorce petition filed by the second respondent

in HMOP.No.4561 of 2017 was prepared by the Family Court and was

signed only on 27.12.2017. The same was sent by RPAD to the first

accused. The first accused received summons through registered post only

after two days on 29.12.2017 due to wrong residential address provided in

the summons. The petitioners also produced acknowledgment, which

reveals that she received summons in HMOP.No.4561 of 2017 on

29.12.2017. Further, they submitted that the entire complaint is nothing but

counter blast to the complaint lodged by the first petitioner.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16934, 16938, 16941 & 16943 of 2022

4. Per contra, Mr.G.Suresh, the learned counsel for the second

respondent / defacto complainant submitted that on receipt of summons

only, all the petitioners came to the place of residence of the second

respondent and scolded with filthy language and they also threatened with

dire consequences. In fact, the first petitioner tore his saree and threatened

that she will foist a complaint as against his father. Further, he submitted

that they lived for only three months and she had given mental and physical

torture. Therefore, the second respondent filed petition for divorce on the

ground of cruelty in HMOP.No.4561 of 2017 on the file of the III

Additional Family Court, Chennai. He further submitted that there are

specific allegations to attract the offence under Sections 294(b) & 506(i) of

IPC.

5. Heard, the petitioners appearing in person, Mr.E.Raj Thilak,

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent,

and Mr.G.Suresh, the learned counsel for the second respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16934, 16938, 16941 & 16943 of 2022

6. It is seen that the first petitioner is the wife of the second

respondent herein. They got married and thereafter due to dowry demand,

she was driven out from the matrimonial home. The learned counsel for the

second respondent submitted that on the complaint lodged by the first

petitioner, all the sreedhana articles which were presented during the

marriage were returned to the first petitioner and the same was also duly

acknowledged by her. In fact, she received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to file

divorce petition on the ground of mutual consent. On receipt of the entire

amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and sreedhana articles which were presented

during the marriage, she refused to agree for mutual consent and the second

respondent was constrained to file divorce petition on the point of cruelty.

7. It is also seen that due to misunderstanding, they got separated.

There was negotiation between them. Both agreed for divorce on mutual

consent. The second respondent had taken DD for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-

and filed petition for divorce on the ground of mutual consent under Section

13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in HMOP.No.4979 of 2018. However,

she did not agree for mutual consent and returned the DD which was taken

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16934, 16938, 16941 & 16943 of 2022

for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by the second respondent herein. Therefore, the

divorce petition filed on the ground of mutual consent was dismissed.

Thereafter, the second respondent filed divorce petition on the ground of

cruelty in HMOP.No.4561 of 2017.

8. On perusal of the records revealed that in the said case,

summons was issued to the first petitioner and the same was received by her

on 29.12.2017. However, the case of the second respondent is that on

receipt of summons from the Family Court for divorce initiated by the

second respondent, all the petitioners came to their house on 27.12.2017 and

scolded them with filthy language. They also threatened them with dire

consequences. Whereas, summons was received by the first petitioner only

on 29.12.2017. That apart, 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16934, 16938, 16941 & 16943 of 2022

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."

9. 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. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in 1996(1) CTC 470 in

the case of K.Jeyaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj & anr., wherein it is 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.Nos.16934, 16938, 16941 & 16943 of 2022

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.

10. 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 petitioners were only empty

threats and they had no effect on the complainant.

11. 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,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16934, 16938, 16941 & 16943 of 2022

which were uttered by the 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.”

Therefore, the entire allegations made by the second respondent are nothing

but only to wreak vengeance as against the petitioners and it is nothing but

clear abuse of process of law.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16934, 16938, 16941 & 16943 of 2022

12. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the judgement reported in

(1992) SCC Crl. 426 in the case of Bajanlal v. State of Haryana, wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has listed out the following category of

case in which the criminal proceedings can be quashed using the inherent

jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:

"102..........

...................

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with malafide and/or where the

proceedings is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the

accused and with a view to spite him due to

private and personal grudge."

13. Therefore, the impugned proceedings is nothing but clear abuse

of process of law and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioners.

Accordingly, the entire proceedings in CC.No.2307 of 2019 on XV

Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George, Town, Chennai, thereby taken

cognizance for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC, in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16934, 16938, 16941 & 16943 of 2022

Crime No.60 of 2018, as against the petitioners is quashed and all the

criminal original petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

09.09.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no Speaking/non speaking order lok

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16934, 16938, 16941 & 16943 of 2022

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, lok