Madras High Court
Krishnakumar vs The State on 7 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.2588 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.2588 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.1882 and 12308 of 2024
Krishnakumar ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
T-14, Mangadu Police Station,
Avadi City,
Tamil Nadu.
2. Sappany Pillai ... Respondents
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the
records in Crime No.592 of 2023, pending investigation of the file of the
first respondent Police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karthikeyan
for Mr.J.V.Sakthi Baalakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath,
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) (for R1)
Mr.P.Palaniandy (for R2)
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 02:15:09 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.2588 of 2024
ORDER
This Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in
Crime No.592 of 2023, pending investigation of the file of the first
respondent Police.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/de-facto
complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner, alleging that the
petitioner's father and the second respondent had jointly purchased,
partitioned and had been enjoying their respective portions in the property,
consisting of land measuring an extent of 5550 sq.ft, comprised in
S.No.69/1B, situated at No.76 (Old No.53), Madhanandhapuram Village,
Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, more fully described in the
schedule-A in the Schedule of properties. Further, the second respondent
had fenced his portion of the property by spending a sum of Rs.30,000/-,
while the portion belonging to the petitioner's father was rented out by the
petitioner and his brothers to an Auto Repair Shop, i.e., a hut made of metal
sheet.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 02:15:09 pm )
2.1. Further, it was alleged that on the instigation of Senthilkumar and
Shivakumar, who are the brothers of the petitioner herein, the petitioner,
along with three other unknown persons, on 14.06.2023, pushed the fence
put up by the second respondent and threatened the second respondent with
dire consequences if he ever enters the petitioner's property. Subsequently,
the second respondent alleged that the said Shivakumar had, on 30.06.2023,
called the second respondent over the phone and abused him with filthy
language and also threatened him with dire consequences. On 02.07.2023,
the petitioner's henchmen, along with equipment, once again knocked down
the fences put up by the second respondent and threatened the security
personnel who tried to stop them. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner's father and the second respondent are friends and they jointly
purchased the property comprised in S.No.69/1B, situated at No.76 (Old
No.53), Madhanandhapuram Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram
District. As per the sale deed, the petitioner's father is entitled to 56% of the
property and the second respondent is entitled to 44% of the property. While
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 02:15:09 pm )
that being so, there is a dispute in respect of the said property, and as such,
the second respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.117 of 2010 on the file of the
District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, seeking a right of
easement for the scheduled property and filed another suit in O.S.No.52 of
2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, for partition. In
the meanwhile, the petitioner's father died and the petitioner stepped into his
father's issues. While that being so, the second respondent lodged a
complaint, as if the petitioner and others damaged the fence worth about
Rs.30,000/- and also threatened the second respondent through the phone
with dire consequences by using filthy language.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that
the CCTV footages are very much available to prosecute the petitioner. He
further submitted that the petitioner's henchmen, along with equipment,
damaged the wire fence to the tune of Rs.30,000/-.
5. Admittedly, the suits filed by the second respondent were
dismissed for default and now, the second respondent has filed applications
to restore the said suits. Further, the petitioner's father and the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 02:15:09 pm )
respondent had jointly purchased the subject property, in which the
petitioner's father was allotted 56% of the property, and the second
respondent was allotted 44% of the property. Therefore, after the demise of
the petitioner's father, the petitioner is entitled to have the same share. In
this regard, there is a dispute pending between the petitioner and the second
respondent. Due to the civil dispute, the present First Information Report
has been filed. Therefore, since the petitioner is also a joint owner of the
subject property, the offence under Section 427 of IPC is not at all attracted
as against the petitioner.
6. On perusal of the FIR, the entire allegations are vague and bald.
Even assuming that the allegations are to attract offence under Section
506(i) of IPC, the intention must be to cause alarm to the victim and
materials have to be brought on record to show that the intention was to
cause alarm to the person. Hence, mere a threat is not sufficient to attract the
charge of criminal intimidation. In this regard it is relevant to rely upon the
judgment in the case of Manik Taneja and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in 2015 (7) SCC 433, wherein it is held as follows:-
“14. A reading of the definition of "Criminal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 02:15:09 pm )
intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of
threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the
person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or
to the person in whom the threatened person is interested
and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the
person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is
not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is
legally entitled to do.
15. In the instant case, the allegation is that the
appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the
second respondent from discharging his public duties and
spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the
intention of the accused that has to be considered in
deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the
meaning of "Criminal intimidation". The threat must be
with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause
that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression
of any words without any intention to cause alarm would
not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section.
But material has to be placed on record to show that the
intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the
facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there
was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause
alarm in the minds of the second respondent causing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 02:15:09 pm )
obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments
posted on the Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is
a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of
appellants posting a comment on the Facebook may not
attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503
IPC.”
Therefore, offence under Section 506(i) of IPC is not at all attracted as
against the petitioner.
7. Insofar as the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, mere utterance
of obscene 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 this case
Further, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioner 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 petitioner, the person felt
annoyed. He has not spoken about the obscene words, he felt annoyed and
in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the
petitioner annoyed the person, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the
offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out. It is relevant to rely upon
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 02:15:09 pm )
the judgment reported in 1996(1) CTC 470 in the case of K.Jeyaramanuju
Vs. Janakaraj & anr., wherein it is 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
petitioner. That apart, in the case on hand, even according to the case of the
prosecution, threatening was made over phone. Therefore, the offence under
Section 294(b) of IPC would not attract as against the petitioner.
8. In view of the above, this Court finds that the First Information
Report in Crime No. 592 of 2023, as against the petitioner under Sections
294(b), 427, and 506(i) of IPC, cannot be sustained and is liable to be
quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 02:15:09 pm )
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the
First Information Report in Crime No.592 of 2023 on the file of the on the
first respondent Police, is hereby quashed. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
07.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
kv
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
T-14, Mangadu Police Station,
Avadi City,
Tamil Nadu.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 02:15:09 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
kv
07.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 02:15:09 pm )
