Madras High Court
Natarajan vs Anandhan on 30 June, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.15840 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 30.06.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.No.15840 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.8639 & 8640 of 2021
1.Natarajan
2.Lakshmi
3.Santhoshkumar .. Petitioners
Vs.
Anandhan ..Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under sections 482
of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records pertaining to
C.C.No.33 of 2021 pending before the District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Portonova and to quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.R.Sakthivel
For Respondent : Mr.V.Rajesh Babu
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.15840 of 2021
ORDER
The petition is to quash the private complaint for the alleged
offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.
2. It is alleged in the private complaint that the petitioners had
attacked the complainant on 13.10.2018 on account of the dispute
between them and the complainant; that the petitioners had abused the
complainant in filthy language; and that the 1st petitioner slapped the
respondent and the other petitioners attacked with hands.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in
the occurrence dated 13.10.2018, the 1st petitioner, who is a victim, was
attacked by the respondent and thus committed the offences under
Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. The 1 st
petitioner had lodged an FIR in Crime No.231 of 2018 on the file of the
Bhuvanagiri Police station. Pursuant to the investigation in the said crime
number, a final report was filed for the above said offences against the
respondent. After filing of the final report, the respondent has come up
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.15840 of 2021
with the impugned complaint. The impugned complaint has been lodged
nearly 14 months after the alleged occurrence. Even according to the
complaint, the complainant had given a complaint to the police on the
same day and thereafter, representation was given to the Superintendent
of Police on 15.12.2018, which was not acted upon. The respondent has
not chosen to file any complaint thereafter, for nearly 14 months. He has
now filed the impugned complaint, which is malafide and motivated,
only to wreak vengeance. Hence, it is liable to be quashed.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent per contra submitted
that the respondent was also injured. Since the police did not take any
action, he had filed the impugned complaint. The complaint contains the
necessary ingredients to attract the offence. The points raised by the
petitioners are matters for trial, and prayed for dismissal of the quash
petition.
5. This Court, on perusal of the complaint and on hearing the
arguments of the learned counsel on either side, finds that admittedly the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.15840 of 2021
occurrence took place on 13.10.2018. In respect of the same occurrence,
the 1st petitioner had lodged the FIR before the Bhuvanagiri Police
station, which culminated in final report in C.C.No.28 of 2019 pending
before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Portonovo. While so,
the respondent has come out with the impugned private complaint to
counter the said prosecution. It is seen that the respondent had filed this
complaint after 14 months. It is also his case that the Superintendent of
Police did not take action on his representation dated 15.12.2018. There
was no reason why he waited for such a long time to file the impugned
complaint. This Court is of the view that the allegations made in the
impugned complaint is an after thought made after the receipt of
summons in the final report based on the F.I.R., lodged by the first
respondent herein. The impugned complaint, therefore, is malafide and
therefore, cannot be sustained. The allegations in any case does not
attract the offence of wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC.
6. Further, the offences of 294(b) and 506(ii) of I.P.C., are also
not made out. The allegations which are in the nature of insult and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.15840 of 2021
humiliation of the complainant would not attract the offence under
Section 294 (b) of IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.15840 of 2021
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 under Section 506(ii) IPC, there is nothing to
suggest that there was any real threat so as to attract the offence of
criminal intimidation. This Court has repeatedly held that the words
spoken must cause real threat to constitute 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. ....”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.15840 of 2021
8. As stated earlier, this Court finds these allegations are only
to counter the prosecution faced by the respondent. The impugned
complaint is malafide and is motivated and hence liable to be quashed.
9. For the above said reasons, this Criminal Original
Petition is allowed and C.C.No.33 of 2021, on the file of the District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Portonova is hereby quashed.
Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
30.06.2023
Internet : Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
rpl
To
The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Portonova.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.15840 of 2021
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
rpl
Crl.O.P.No.15840 of 2021
30.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
