Siranjivi @ Siranjividharuman vs The Sub Inspector Of Police
2023 Latest Caselaw 5016 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 5016 Mad
Judgement Date : 4 May, 2023

Madras High Court

Siranjivi @ Siranjividharuman vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 4 May, 2023

                                                                          CRL.O.P.No. 9924 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 04.05.2023

                                                       CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                Crl.O.P.No.9924 of 2023

                1.Siranjivi @ Siranjividharuman
                2.Captain Prabakaran                                              ... Petitioners

                                                          Vs.
                The Sub Inspector of Police,
                Thiruthani Police Station,
                Thiruthani, Thiruvallur District.                                 ... Respondent

                PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
                praying to call for the records and quash the proceedings in Crime No.17 of
                2023 pending on the file of the respondent police.


                                        For Petitioners   : Mr.P.Muthamizhselvakumar
                                        For Respondent    : Mr.N.S.Suganthan,
                                                            Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

                                                      ORDER

This Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime

No.17 of 2023 on the file of the respondent for the offences under Sections

294(b) of IPC r/w 7(1)(a) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2005, as against

the petitioners.

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

CRL.O.P.No. 9924 of 2023

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.01.2023 at about 10.30

hours, the complainant as well as the defacto complainant was in the usual beat

duty along with the police party in the Thiruthani bus terminal and other areas.

At that time, the respondent was found that the petitioner was standing on the

road corner at Thiruthani bus terminals and abused the General public and

while the arrival of the respondent, they tried to escape. At the time, the

respondent secured the petitioners and inquired regarding the same which

reveals that the petitioners prepared themselves to attack the general public

and had weapons for the same. The respondent secured the petitioners in order

to prevent them to indulge the unlawful activities and registered a case in

Crime No.17 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 294(b) r/w section

7(1)(a) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1934.

3. To attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there must be an

uttering of words to affect the person who lodged the complaint. In this regard

it is relevant to extract the Section 294(b) of IPC, as follows :-

"294. Obscene acts and songs —Whoever, to the annoyance of others— (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be

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

CRL.O.P.No. 9924 of 2023

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both."

Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioners as such to

constitute the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there is no averments and

allegations. Further the charges do not show that on hearing the obscene

words, which were allegedly uttered by the petitioners, the witnesses felt

annoyed. 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 petitioners

annoyed others, it can not be said that the ingredients of the offence under

Section 294(b) of IPC is made out.

4. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in 1996(1) CTC 470

in the case of K.Jeyaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj & anr., which held as follows :-

"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."

The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case and therefore,

the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not at all attracted as against the

petitioners.

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

CRL.O.P.No. 9924 of 2023

5. In view of the above discussion, this Criminal Original Petition is

allowed and Crime.No.17 of 2023 on the file of the Inspector of Police,

Tiruthani Police Station, Thiruthani, Tiruvallur District is hereby quashed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

04.05.2023

Internet:Yes/No Index :Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruthani Police Station, Thiruthani, Thiruvallur District.