P. Kulanthaivel vs The State Rep.
2023 Latest Caselaw 5960 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 5960 Mad
Judgement Date : 12 June, 2023

Madras High Court

P. Kulanthaivel vs The State Rep. on 12 June, 2023

                                                                                    Crl OP No. 6962 / 2021

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED: 12.06.2023

                                                           CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                   Criminal Original Petition No. 6962 of 2021
                                                        and
                                        Crl.M.P. Nos. 4607 & 8962 of 2021
                     1. P. Kulanthaivel
                     2. K. Saravanan
                     3. K. Bhuvaneswari                                           ... Petitioners
                                                             Versus

                     1. The State rep., by,
                        The Sub-Inspector of Police,
                        Puduchathiram Police Station,
                        Namakkal District.
                        Cr. No. 186 of 2019.
                     2. Vijaya                                            ... Respondents


                     PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
                     Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records relating to the
                     C.C. No. 387 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II at
                     Namakkal and quash the same as illegal.

                                  For Petitioners     : Mr. C. Munuraj.

                                  For Respondents : Mr. A. Damodaran,
                                              Additional Public Prosecutor for R1.

                                                Mr. S. Sheik Ismail for R2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/8
                                                                                Crl OP No. 6962 / 2021




                                              ORDER

The petition is to quash the final report filed for the alleged

offence under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The allegation in the final report is that A1 and A2 had

represented the defacto complainant that they would secure a job and

obtained Rs.4,00,000/- and when the defacto complainant made a

demand, A1 and A2 had abused the defacto complainant in filthy

language and thus they committed the aforesaid offences.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

respondent police had earlier conducted investigation and had recorded

that further action is dropped on the letter dated 03.09.2019, sent by the

defacto complainant to the Inspector of Police. The learned counsel

further submitted that the matter is civil in nature and the respondents are

proceeding against the petitioners only to wreak vengeance. Further, the

third petitioner is an unmarried lady and the daughter of the first accused.

She has nothing to do with the alleged offences and even according to

the prosecution, the third accused has not made any false representation.

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

Crl OP No. 6962 / 2021

The only allegation against the third accused is that she along with the

other accused abused the defacto complainant.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first

respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent would

submit that the endorsement 'further action dropped' in the letter sent by

the defacto complainant dated 03.09.2019 cannot be accepted since if

really the respondent police had dropped further action, they would have

filed a report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. However there is no

such report filed by the respondent police. The document relied upon by

the petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage. They would further

submit that there are allegations in the impugned final report and the

matter has to be adjudicated only before the trial Court.

5.This Court finds that the allegation is that the accused had

demanded money from the defacto complainant promising to obtain a

job. The materials filed in support of the final report suggest that the

demand was allegedly made by A1 and A2. There is nothing in the

impugned final report to show that A3 had any role in the alleged

deception and demand made by the other two accused. This Court further

finds that the allegations against A3 is that she had abused the defacto https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl OP No. 6962 / 2021

complainant in filthy language. 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 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.“

The above observations squarely apply to the facts of the instant case.

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

Crl OP No. 6962 / 2021

6. Further, this Court has repeatedly held that the words spoken

must cause real threat to constitute the offence of criminal intimidation.

However, on a reading of the Final Report, there is nothing to suggest

that there was any real threat so as to attract the offence of criminal

intimidation. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of this Court

in Noble Mohandass Vs. State, reported in Manu/TN/0026/1988,

wherein this court has held as follows:

“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....” Hence, this Court is inclined to quash the final report as against the third

petitioner who is arrayed as A3.

7.Since there are allegations against A1 and A2, this Court is not

inclined to entertain this petition as far as A1 and A2 are concerned.

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

Crl OP No. 6962 / 2021

However, it is open for A1 and A2 to raise all contentions before the trial

Court and the trial Court shall consider the same on merits without being

influenced by any of the observations made in this order.

8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed

and the proceedings in C.C. No. 387 of 2020 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate II at Namakkal is quashed as against the third

petitioner. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are