Madras High Court
Naveenbalaji vs State Rep. By on 24 April, 2023
Crl OP No.27280 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.04.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Criminal Original Petition No.27280 of 2019
and Crl.M.P.Nos.14462 & 14463 of 2019
NaveenBalaji ... Petitioner/Single Accused
Versus
1. State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Suramangalam Police Station,
Salem District. ... Respondent/Complainant
2. T.Sundaramurthy ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records in
C.C.No.322 of 2016, pending on th file of Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Salem and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Balaji
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side), for R1
No Appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl OP No.27280 of 2019
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the Final
Report for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC.
2. It is alleged in the Final Report that on 28.03.2015 at about 8
a.m. the petitioner had abused the Defacto Complainant in filthy
language, insulted him and caused agony to the Defacto Complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner and the Defacto Complainant are relatives; that a wordy
quarrel, while cremating the body of a common relative of both the
petitioner and the defacto complainant is sought to be projected as if the
defacto complainant was abused and assaulted. He further submitted that
the petitioner neither uttered obscene words nor threatened the second
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl OP No.27280 of 2019
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted
that there are allegations in the impugned Final Report which attract the
offences and hence he prayed for the dismissal of the Criminal Original
Petition.
5. The learned Government Advocate was requested to inform the
second respondent about the pending proceedings, since the notice sent
by the petitioner could not be served on the Defacto Complainant. The
learned Government Advocate reported that the first respondent had
informed the second respondent about the pending proceedings.
However, the second respondent has not entered appearance.
6. This Court on perusal of the impugned Final Report finds that
the allegation is that the petitioner had abused the Defacto
Complainant/second respondent in filthy language and insulted him.
The allegations would not attract the offences under Section 294 (b) of
the IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgement reported in 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 844 – N.S.Madhanagopal and another Vs. K.Lalitha, has
held as follows:
“It has to be noted that in the instance case, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl OP No.27280 of 2019
absence of words which will involve some lascivious
elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words
cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b). None of the
records disclose the alleged words used by the accused. It
may not be the requirement of law to reproduce in all cases
the entire obscene words if it is lengthy, but in the instant
case, there is hardly anything on record. Mere abusive,
humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an
offence under Section 294(b) IPC. 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. 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 appellants accused
annoyed others, it can not be said that the ingredients of the
offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC is made out.“
7. As regards the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC, there is no
allegation that the petitioner had uttered any words to attract the offence
of criminal intimidation. This Court has held that in order to attract the
offence of criminal intimidation, there must be a real threat. The relevant
observations of the judgment of this Court in Noble Mohandass Vs.
State, reported in Manu/TN/0026/1988, is extracted hereunder for better
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl OP No.27280 of 2019
understanding:
“7. ...... Further for being an offence under Section
506(2) which is rather an important offence punishable
with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, the
threat should be a real one and not just a mere word
when the person uttering it does exactly mean what he
says and also when the person at whom threat is
launched does not feel threatened actually. ....”
In the instant case the facts do not suggest that there were any obscene
words uttered by the petitioner to the annoyance of others or any real
threat was made by the petitioner.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the
impugned Final Report is an abuse of process of law and it is liable to be
quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently,
the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.04.2023
jv
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl OP No.27280 of 2019
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Salem
2. The Inspector of Police,
Suramangalam Police Station,
Salem District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl OP No.27280 of 2019
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
jv
Criminal Original Petition No.27280 of 2019
and Crl.M.P.Nos.14462 & 14463 of 2019
24.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
