Jothirathinam vs The State Rep By
2023 Latest Caselaw 3553 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3553 Mad
Judgement Date : 31 March, 2023

Madras High Court

Jothirathinam vs The State Rep By on 31 March, 2023

                                                                       Crl.O.P.No.6162 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 31.03.2023

                                                     CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                              Crl.O.P.No.6162 of 2021
                                                        and
                                          Crl.M.P.Nos.4065 & 4066 of 2021

                     Jothirathinam
                                                                                 ...Petitioner

                                                       -Vs-

                     1.The State rep by :
                       The Inspector of Police,
                       Nangavalli Police Station,
                       Salem District.
                       (Crime No.48 of 2020)

                     2.Chokkalingam                                          ... Respondents



                     Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of

                     Criminal Procedure, to call for records relating to the proceedings in

                     C.C.No.95 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur,

                     and to quash the same.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/9
                                                                                Crl.O.P.No.6162 of 2021

                                         For Petitioner           : Mr.B.Kumarasamy

                                         For R1                   : Mr.A.Damodaran
                                                                    Additional Public Prosecutor

                                        For R2                    : No appearance


                                                            ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the

final report in C.C.No.196 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate

No.I, Mettur, filed for the offence under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(ii)

IPC.

2.It is alleged in the final report that, on 06.02.2020 at about 9.00

p.m, the petitioner / accused had stopped the 2nd respondent / de-facto

complainant and abused him in filthy language and threatened him with

dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, even if

the allegations are accepted to be true and the petitioner had uttered

words which had insulted and humiliated the 2nd respondent, the offence

under Section 294-b is not made out. Further, as regards the offence

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

Crl.O.P.No.6162 of 2021

under Section 506(ii) IPC the alleged threat would not constitute the

criminal intimidation, because there was no real threat made out. The

learned counsel would further submit that the offence under Section 341

IPC would not be made, because there is nothing in the impugned final

report that the petitioner had wrongfully restrained the 2nd respondent

within the meaning of Section 339 of IPC. Hence, he prayed for

quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.95 of 2020.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there

are allegations in the final report, which has to be adjudicated only

before the trial Court. He further submitted that the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the petitioner are factual in nature and cannot be

adjudicated in the quash petition. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the

quash petition.

5.Though notice was served on the 2nd respondent and the name is

printed in the cause list, none has entered appearance.

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

Crl.O.P.No.6162 of 2021

6.This Court finds that the allegations in the final report reads as

follows:

“06/02/2020k; njjp ,ut[ Rkhh; 21/00 kzpf;F e';fts;sp fhty; epiya rufk; e';fts;sp to tdthrp nuhoy; rkl;oa{h; mUnf ,t;tHf;fpd;

                                  thjpia        F/g/tpy;     fz;l       vjphp     tHp      kwpj;J
                                  “Vz;lh       njtoah        igah      vd;      kr;rpdd;     gzk;
                                  bfhLf;fhjjw;F           ePjhz;lh     fhuzk;” vd;W         bghJ
                                  ,lj;jpy;           bfl;l           thh;j;ijahy;            jpl;o
                                  mtkhdg;gLj;jpa[k;               “cd;id             bfhy;yhky;
                                  tplkhl;nld;;”      vd;W        fj;jpia        fhl;o      bfhiy
                                  kpul;ly;     tpLj;Js;shh;/       vdnt         F/g/tpy;    fz;l
                                  vjphp      gphpt[fs;    341.    294(b).    506(ii)       IPC go

jz;of;fj; jf;f Fw;wk; g[hpe;Js;shh;”

7.The above would show that the petitioner had abused the 2nd

respondent in filthy language, which is bound to humiliate and insult the

2nd respondent. However, the said words cannot said to be obscene to

attract the offence under Section 294-b IPC. In N.S.Madhanagopal and

Another Vs. K.Lalitha reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844, the Hon'ble

Supreme held as follows:

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

Crl.O.P.No.6162 of 2021

“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. 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.”

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

Crl.O.P.No.6162 of 2021

8.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. .......

The observations in the above judgment squarely apply to the facts

of the present case.

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

Crl.O.P.No.6162 of 2021

9.The offence under Section 341 IPC would not be made because

there is nothing in the impugned final report to show that the petitioner

had wrongfully restrained the 2nd respondent. Admittedly, they both were

known to each other and were involved in a verbal duel. In such

circumstances, it cannot be said the petitioner had wrongfully restrained

the 2nd respondent to attract the offence under Section 341 IPC.

10.For all the above reasons, the impugned final report in

C.C.No.95 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – I, Mettur, is