Madras High Court
C.R.Saravanan vs Sub-Inspector Of Police on 30 March, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.3913 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.No.3913 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.2340 & 2341 of 2021
1.C.R.Saravanan
2.Ramadas
3.Bharathi
... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Sub-Inspector of Police,
Gudiyattam Town Police Station
Gudiyattam
Vellore District
2.S.Rubi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records in CC.No.358 of
2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyattam, Vellore District and
quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Vinoth Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Balaji, Government Advocate
(Crl.Side) [R.1]
: Not ready in notice [R.2]
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3913 of 2021
ORDER
The petition is to quash the final report for the offences under
Sections 294(b), 354, 506(1) IPC read with Section 4 of Woman
Harassment Act
2. It is alleged in the final report that the de facto complainant and the
1st accused got married 16 years ago and out of the said wedlock a girl child
was born who is now aged about 14 years; that the 1st accused along with
the other accused had caused harassment to the de facto complainant; that
the 1st accused had outraged the modesty of his daughter Abhinaya; that the
petitioners who are arrayed as A.2, A.3 and A.4 had abused her in filthy
language and also did not respect her and give equal status to her in the
house.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
petitioners are the mother, father and sister of A.1. The main allegation is
against the A.1, who is said to have outraged the modesty of his daughter.
As against the petitioners, there are vague allegations and even those vague
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3913 of 2021
allegations do not constitute the offences alleged. He would further submit
that the 1st petitioner is no more. Since the allegations do not satisfy the
ingredients of offences under Sections 294(b), 354, 506(1) IPC read with
Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act against the petitioners,
he, prayed for quashing of the impugned complaint.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
allegations in the final report ought to be adjudicated only before the Trial
Court. The question as to whether the petitioners are guilty of the alleged
offences cannot be gone into the quash petition, hence prayed for dismissal
of the quash petition.
5. Though notice was sent to the de facto complainant, it could not be
served since the de facto complainant is said to be not residing in the
address shown in the complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the notice taken privately also was returned for the reason
“addressee left return to sender”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3913 of 2021
6. This Court on perusal of the impugned final report finds that the
allegation against the petitioners is that they abused her in filthy language
and asked her to bring more jewels. This allegation is vague and bereft of
necessary particulars. Further, this allegation would not by any stretch of
imagination constitute the offences under Sections 294(b). In order to attract
the offences under Section 294(b), the words uttered must be obscene. The
observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 844 - 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3913 of 2021
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 observation squarely applies to the case in hand.
7. As regards the offence under Section 506 IPC, the words said to
have been uttered by the petitioners would not constitute a real threat.
8. The other allegation is that equal status was not given to the
respondent/de facto complainant in the house by the petitioners. This would
not attract the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Harassment of
Women Act by any stretch of imagination. It would not fall within the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3913 of 2021
meaning of harassment defined under Section 2(a) of the said Act. That
apart, there is nothing in the impugned final report to show as to what is the
nature of embarrassment or unequal treatment that the de facto complainant
suffered.
9. In view of the above, this Court finds the impugned complaint as
against the petitioners is clearly an abuse of process of law and hence, liable
to be quashed, and hence the complaint is quashed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
30.03.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
shr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3913 of 2021
To
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Gudiyattam Town Police Station
Gudiyattam
Vellore District
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyattam, Vellore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3913 of 2021
SUNDER MOHAN. J,
shr
Crl.O.P.No.3913 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P. Nos.2340 & 2341 of 2021
30.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
