Madras High Court
Malairaja @ Allwinraj vs The State Rep. By on 28 March, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.3685 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.No.3685 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.2194 of 2021
Malairaja @ Allwinraj
...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Sendurai Police Station,
Ariyalur.
(Crime No.439 of 2020)
2.C.Pazhanisamy ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records with respect to the
proceedings in S.T.C.No.3 of 2021 on the file of the District Munsif
-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Sendurai and to quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.O.P.No.3685 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi
For R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : No appearance
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final
report in S.T.C.No.3 of 2021 filed for the offence under Sections 294(b)
and 506(i) of IPC.
2.It is alleged in the final report that on 26.08.2020 when the
petitioner was standing near the Court complex at Sendurai, the de-facto
complainant asked the petitioner as to why he is filing the petition in
Courts insulting the lawyers and the legal profession; that the petitioner
had replied stating that, he had learnt law by watching the Court
proceedings and insulted the de-facto complainant stating as follows:
“rl;lk; goj;J tpl;L ,Jtiu eP';fs; vd;d
g[L';FdP';f”
It is further alleged that the petitioner had threatened the de-facto
complainant stating that he would kill him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3685 of 2021
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the
allegations in the final report do not constitute the offence alleged. Even
assuming that the entire allegations are true, the words uttered by the
petitioner cannot said to be obscene in order to constitute the offence
under Section 294 (b) of IPC. As regards, under Section 506(i) of IPC,
the learned counsel submitted that there was no real threat and this Court
has held repeatedly that mere words would not constitute offence under
Section 506(i) of IPC.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st
respondent would submit that, in view of the allegations, the points
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has to be adjudicated only
before the trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.
5.Though notice was served on the de-facto complainant, none has
entered appearance.
6.This Court finds that the allegation against the petitioner is that
he had insulted the de-facto complainant by uttering the words, which is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3685 of 2021
extracted above. Even assuming that the de-facto complainant was
insulted, it would not amount to offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC. In
N.S.Madhanagopal and Another Vs. K.Lalitha reported in 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 844, the Hon'ble Supreme held as follows:
“It has to be noted that in the instant 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 are not sufficient
but there must be a further proof of establish that it was
to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3685 of 2021
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 cannot be said that the ingredients of
the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out.”
7.Further, the allegation with regard to the alleged threat does not
amount to real threat. This Court has held repeatedly that mere words
would not constitute the offence of criminal intimidation. A useful
reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in Noble
Mohandass Vs. State reported in 1989 Cri.Lj 669 and the relevant
portion of which is extracted below:
“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.3685 of 2021
8.Since none of the offences are made out on the allegations, the
impugned final report in S.T.C.No.3 of 2021 on the file of the District
Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate Court, Sendurai, is quashed.
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently,
the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
28.03.2023
smv (1/2)
Internet: Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To,
1.The Inspector of Police,
Sendurai Police Station,
Ariyalur.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
3.The District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate Court,
Sendurai.
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3685 of 2021
smv
Crl.O.P.No.3685 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.2194 of 2021
(1/2)
28.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
