Madras High Court
Abirami vs State By Inspector Of Police on 13 June, 2023
Crl OP No.20067 / 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.06.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Criminal Original Petition No.20067 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P. Nos.10922 and 10924 of 2021
1.Abirami
2.R.Rajaganesh
3.R.Kanagasabai ...Petitioners
Versus
1. State by Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District.
2. Sangeetha ...Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482
of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records in
S.C.No.124 of 2021 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District and quash the proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl OP No.20067 / 2021
For Petitioners : M/s. T. Vijayaragavan
For Respondent : Mr. S.Balaji
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
for R1.
No Appearance for R2
ORDER
The petition is to quash the final report for the alleged offences
under Sections 294 (b) and 506 (1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
as against the petitioners.
2. It is alleged in the final report that the defacto
complainant/second respondent herein and the first accused were in love
with each other; that the first accused had promised to marry and
indulged in a physical relationship with the de-facto complainant;
that thereafter, the first accused deserted the defacto complainant;
that when the defacto complainant had questioned the first accused and
the petitioners, they had abused the defacto complainant in filthy
language and threatened her with dire consequences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl OP No.20067 / 2021
3. Mr.T.Vijayaragavan, the learned counsel for the petitioners
would submit that admittedly the dispute is only with the
second respondent and the first accused; that the petitioners are arrayed
as A2/first petitioner, A3/second petitioner and A6/third petitioner in the
final report; that the first petitioner is the sister of the first accused,
the second petitioner is the sister’s husband and the third petitioner is the
maternal uncle of the first accused; that they had nothing to do with the
alleged relationship with the first accused and the defacto complainant;
that allegation against the first two petitioners is that they committed the
offence under Section 294 (b) IPC; that the allegation is that they had
abused the defacto complainant in filthy language; that the final report
does not contain the exact words said to have uttered by the petitioners;
that in any case, Section 294 (b) IPC is not made out; that as against the
third petitioner, the offences under Sections 294 (b), 506(1) IPC are not
made out; and hence, he prayed for quashing of the final report filed
against the petitioners.
4. Mr.S.Balaji, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side),
submitted that there are allegations in the impugned final report which
would attract the offences alleged; that the matter has to be adjudicated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl OP No.20067 / 2021
only before the trial Court; and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the
quash petition.
5. Though notice was served on the second respondent/defacto
complainant, none has entered an appearance on behalf of the second
respondent.
6. This Court, on perusal of the impugned final report, finds that
the allegation against A1 is that he had a physical relationship with the
defacto complainant/second respondent on the promise of marriage and
thereafter deserted her. The petitioners are the relatives of the first
accused. There is no allegation of deception against them. This Court is
of the view that the petitioners, who are the relatives of the first accused,
have been implicated in the instant case only to wreak vengeance on the
first accused. In any case, the allegations do not attract the offences
alleged. The Honourable Apex Court held that in order to attract the
offence under Section 294 (b) IPC, the words uttered must be obscene
and in a public place to the annoyance of others. In the instant case,
there is no such allegation. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the Judgment reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844 –
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl OP No.20067 / 2021
N.S.Madhanagopal and another Vs. K.Lalitha, is extracted hereunder
for understanding:
“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 obscene words is 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.“
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl OP No.20067 / 2021
Further, this Court also held that in order to attract the offence of
criminal intimidation, there must be a real threat. Mere words would not
attract the said offence. The observations of this Court in the Judgment
reported in Manu/TN/0026/1988, - Noble Mohandass Vs. State, is
extracted hereunder for better 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. ....”
7. For all the above reasons, the impugned final report as against
the petitioners is liable to be quashed. Hence, the Criminal Original
Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
13.06.2023
dk
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl OP No.20067 / 2021
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court,
Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl OP No.20067 / 2021
SUNDER MOHAN, J
dk
Criminal Original Petition No.20067 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P. Nos.10922 and 10924 of 2021
Dated: 13.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
