Madras High Court
Murali Shankar vs The State Rep. By on 28 April, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.27522 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.No.27522 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.14702 of 2019
Murali Shankar
... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Pappireddipatti Police Station,
Dharmapuri District
(Crime No.265 of 2016)
2. Jayanthi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code seeking to call for the records in CC.No.34 of 2017 on the
file of Judicial Magistrate, Pappireddipatti and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioners : M/s.R.Sankarasubbu
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran,Addl.Public Prosecutor [R.1]
: No appearance [R.2]
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.27522 of 2019
The petition is to quash the final report for the alleged offences under
Section 294 B, 323, 506 (ii) IPC read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Women Harassment Act.
2. It is alleged in the final report that on 24.07.2016, at about 1 p.m.
when the de facto complainant was approaching towards the Government
Hospital, Pappireddipatti, the accused abused her in filthy language and
caused hurt to her.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
and L.W.2 had a love affair. This act was opposed by the de facto
complainant who is the mother of L.W.2. In order to arm-twist the
petitioner, the de facto complainant has come up with this false complaint.
In any event, the learned counsel further submitted that none of the offences
are made out. There is no allegation that any obscene words were uttered to
the annoyance of others. The alleged offence under Section 294(B) IPC is
not made out and the other offences under Section 323, 506 (ii) IPC &
Section 4 of the of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act are also not
made out.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.27522 of 2019
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are
allegations in the impugned final report which have to be adjudicated only
before the Trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.
5. Though notice was sent to the de facto complainant, none has
entered appearance for the de facto complaint. This Court had directed the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor to inform the de facto complaint about
the pendency of the quash proceedings. The learned Additional Public
Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the 2nd respondent had informed
the 1st respondent police that she does not intend to pursue the impugned
proceedings.
6. This Court finds that apart from the present stand taken by the 2 nd
respondent not to pursue the proceedings, the impugned prosecution is liable
to be quashed, even otherwise. The allegation do not attract the offence
under Section 294(b) IPC as the words uttered by the petitioner cannot be
said to be obscene. In order to attract the offences under Section 294(b) IPC,
the words uttered must be obscene. The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the judgment reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844 -
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.27522 of 2019
N.S.Madhanagopal & Anr. Vs. K.Lalitha wherein it was reiterated that in
order to attract the offence under Section 294(b) the words uttered ought to
be obscene is as follows:-
" It has to be noted that in the instance case, the
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, this Court had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.27522 of 2019
held that in order to attract the offence of criminal intimidation, there must
be a real threat. There is no such threat in the present case. The other
offences under Sections 323 IPC and Section 4 of the Women Harassment
Act also are not made out on the facts of the case. That apart, this Court
finds that admittedly the petitioner and the 2nd respondent’s daughter had a
love affair. The impugned complaint appears to be to wreak vengeance on
the petitioner since the 2nd respondent was aggrieved by the act of the
petitioner.
8. For all the above reasons, this Court is inclined to quash the
impugned final report. Hence, the impugned final report is quashed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently,
the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
28.04.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
shr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.27522 of 2019
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Pappireddipatti Police Station,
Dharmapuri District
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Pappireddipatti.
SUNDER MOHAN. J,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.27522 of 2019
shr
Crl.O.P.No.27522 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P. No.14702 of 2019
28.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
