Madras High Court
Valarmathi vs State Rep. By on 26 March, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 24.02.2025
Pronounced on : 26.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.1588 and 1589 of 2025
Valarmathi ... Petitioner in
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.
154 of 2025
Ramasamy ... Petitioner in
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.
155 of 2025
Vs.
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Karur.
(Crime No.4 of 2023) ... Respondent in both
the petitions
Common Prayer : These Criminal Revision Cases filed under Sections
438 r/w 442 B.N.S.S., to call for the entire records pertaining to the order
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karur in Cr.M.P.No.99
and 185 of 2024 in S.C.No.63 of 2023 vide order dated 21.11.2024 and set
aside the same by allowing these criminal revision petitions.
(in both the petitions)
For Petitioner : Mr.R.L.Dilipan Pandian
for Mr.K.Arunraj
For Respondent : Mrs.M.Aasha
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Revisions are directed against the common order
passed in Crl.M.P.No.99 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.185 of 2024 in S.C.No.
63 of 2023 dated 21.11.2024 on the file of the Additional District Court,
Karur, dismissing the petitions for discharge filed under Section 227 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The petitioners are wife and husband and are facing the case in
S.C.No.63 of 2023 on the file of the Additional District Court, Karur.
3. The case of the defacto complainant is that the defacto
complainant had completed M.Sc. Zoology and was working at Tex Park,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
that the defacto complainant and the first accused, who is her relative, had
loved each other, that the first accused, by promising to marry her, had
sexual relationship with her, that the defacto complainant has become
pregnant twice and as per the direction of the first accused, she got the
same aborted, that subsequently the first accused has avoided to meet the
defacto complainant and when the same was enquired, he informed that he
is going to marry another girl, that on 02.05.2023 at about 06.00 p.m., the
defacto complainant along with her mother and other relatives went to the
house of the accused and informed the petitioners/accused 2 and 3, who
are the parents of the first accused, about the relationship between the
defacto complainant and the first accused and also about the abortion done
at the compulsion of the first accused, that the petitioners have refused to
accept the version of the defacto complainant, abused her in filthy
language and caused criminal intimidation and that therefore the defacto
complainant was constrained to lodge a complaint.
4. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant,
FIR came to be registered in Crime No.4 of 2023 against three persons
including the petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 376, 417,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
420, 294(b) and 506(1) IPC and after completing the investigation, the
respondent police has laid the final report against the first accused for the
alleged offences under Sections 376, 417 and 420 IPC and against the
petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(1) IPC
and after committal, the case was taken on file in S.C.No.63 of 2023 and is
pending on the file of the Additional District Court, Karur.
5. When the sessions case was pending for framing of charges, the
petitioners have filed the petitions under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking
discharge from the above case.
6. The case of the petitioners is that actually the first accused and
the defacto complainant loved each other and later on they got separated,
that the defacto complainant to wreck vengeance made bald and frivolous
allegations against the petitioners, that the statement given by the defacto
complainant before the police under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. and the
statement given under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are contradictory to each other,
that the prosecution has not levelled any charges that the petitioners have
used abusive words in a public place, that there are absolutely no materials
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
to show that abusing with obscene words caused annoyance to others, that
the prosecution has not shown that the alleged threat given by the
petitioners are real and substantial and that since the prosecution has failed
to show any prima facie materials so as to attract the offences under
Sections 294(b) and 506(1) IPC, the petitioners are entitled to get
discharge from the above case.
7. The respondent police has filed a counter raising objections and
further stated that the defacto complainant has given statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. implicating the involvement of the petitioners in the
alleged occurrence, that the defacto complainant has given statement that
the petitioners had abused in filthy language and caused criminal
intimidation, that contradictions referred by the petitioners cannot be gone
into at the present stage, that there are sufficient materials available to
frame charges against the petitioners and that therefore the discharge
petitions are liable to be dismissed.
8. The learned Sessions Judge, after enquiry, has passed the
impugned common order dated 21.11.2024 dismissing the discharge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
petitions. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the present revisions came
to be filed.
9. No doubt, as already pointed out, serious charges are levelled
against the first accused for the offences under Sections 376, 417 and 420
IPC.
10. It is not the case of the defacto complainant that the petitioners
were already aware of the relationship between the defacto complainant
and the first accused. Even according to the defacto complainant, she went
to the accused house on 02.05.2023 along with her mother and relatives
and at that time only, informed the petitioners about the relationship
between the defacto complainant and the first accused and the abortion
done at the compulsion of the first accused.
11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, though the defacto complainant, in her complaint as well as in
her statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., has given the abusive words
alleged to have been used by the petitioners but in her statement under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
Section 164 Cr.P.C. given before the learned Magistrate, she has not
whispered anything about the abusive words alleged to have been used by
the petitioners but on the other hand, she has stated that the third accused
had started to abuse them in filthy language and the same could not be
borne to be heard.
12. The defacto complainant in her statement under Section 161(3)
Cr.P.C. has stated “... jfhj nfl;l thh;j;ijahy; jpl;b> vdJ kfid
jpUkzk; nra;J nfhs;tjhf $wp ,dpNky; vdJ tPl;Lg;gf;fk;
te;jhNyh> vdJ kfdplk; NehpNyh> NghdpNyh NgrpdhNyh cd;id
nfhy;yhky; tplkhl;Nlhk; vd;W nfhiy kpul;ly; tpLj;jhh;fs;....”.
The above version was reiterated by the other witnesses also. But in 164
statement, the defacto complainant has stated “.. mtuJ mk;khTk;
mg;ghTk; cdf;F vd;d jFjp ,Uf;F vd; igad fy;ahzk;
gz;zpf;f> eP vd; igaDf;F xj;Jtu khl;l> ,dpNky; Nghdpy; Ngrf;
$lhJ> vd; tPl;L thrg;gbia kpjpf;ff;$lhJ> etPd;Fkhiu ghh;f;f
$lhJ> kPwpdhy; nfhiy nra;JtpLNthk; vd;W kpul;bdhh;fs;.
etPd;Fkhupd; mg;gh nfl;lthh;j;ijapy; vy;yhk; Ngr Muk;gpj;J
tpl;lhh;. me;j thh;j;ijfis fhjpy; Nfl;f Kbatpy;iy. ...”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
13. Even assuming that the petitioners have abused the defacto
complainant and others, when the defacto complainant accompanied by
her mother and relatives confronted the first accused and his parents about
the alleged rape and forced abortions, the parents initial reaction is of
using abusive language, although unfortunate, is understandable, hearing
the shocking nature of the allegations. In this context, verbal outburst
cannot be construed as offences so as to attract Sections 294(b) and 506(1)
IPC.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would rely on
a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.S.Madhanagopal and
others Vs. K.Lalitha reported in MANU/SC/1805/2022, wherein, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that mere abusive, humiliating or
defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b)
IPC and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:-
“7.Section 294(b) of the IPC talks about the obscene
acts and songs. Section 294 of the IPC as a whole reads
thus:
"294.Obscene acts and songs - Whoever, to the
annoyance of others -
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad
or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both."
8.It is to be noted that the test of obscenity under
Section 294(b) of the I.P.C. is whether the tendency of the
matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt
those whose minds are open to such immoral influences.
The following passage from the judgment authored by
Justice K.K. Mathew (as his Lordship then was) reported
in P.T. Chacko v. Nainan (1967 KLT 799) explains as
follows:
“The only point argued was that the 1st accused has
not committed an offence punishable under Section
294(b) IPC., by uttering the words above-mentioned.
The courts below have held that the words uttered
were obscene and the utterance caused annoyance to
the public. I am not inclined to take this view. In the
Queen v. Hicklin, [L.R.] 3 Q.B. 360 at 371 Cockburn
C.J. Laid down the test of ‘obscenity’ in these words:
“……. the test of obscenity is this, whether the
tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to
deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open
to such immoral influences” This test has been
uniformly followed in India. The Supreme Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
has accepted the correctness of the test in Ranjit D.
Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881.
In Samuel Roth v. U.S.A., 354 US 476 (1957), Chief
Justice Warren said that the test of ‘obscenity’ is
the “substantial tendency to corrupt by arousing
lustful desires”. Mr. Justice Harlan observed that
in order to be ‘obscene’ the matter must “tend to
sexually impure thoughts”. I do not think that the
words uttered in this case have such a tendency. It
may be that the words are defamatory of the
complainant, but I do not think that the words are
‘obscene’ and the utterance would constitute an
offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC”.
9.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
attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. To prove the
offence under Section 294(b) of IPC mere utterance of
obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
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 cannot be
said that the ingredients of the offence under Section
294(b) of IPC is made out.”
15. It is also necessary to refer the judgment of the Kerala High
Court in Latheef Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2014 (2) KLT 987,
wherein also, it has been held that abusive words or humiliating words or
defamatory words will not as such amount to obscenity as envisaged in
Section 292 and 294(b) IPC and that to make it punishable under Section
294(b) IPC, the alleged words must be in a sense lascivious, or it must be
appeal to the prurient interest, or will deprave or corrupt persons.
16. Even assuming for arguments sake that the petitioners had
uttered abusive or filthy words, there is no material to show that it was to
the annoyance of other. It is not the case of the prosecution that the
witnesses have stated that they felt annoyed. Considering the above, this
Court has no hesitation to hold that the ingredients of the offence under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
Section 294(b) IPC are not made out.
17. Now turning to the offence under Section 506(1) IPC, according
to the prosecution, the petitioners had threatened the defacto complainant
that they would kill her if she meets or contacts the first accused. The
prosecution, in order to attract the offence under Section 506 IPC, must
prove (i) that the accused threatened some person, (ii) that such threat
consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the
person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested and
(iii) that he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause
that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to
do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the
execution of such threat.
18. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manik Taneja and another Vs. State of
Karnataka and another reported in 2015 7 SCC 423,
11. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the
offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as
defined in Section 503 IPC is as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
"503. Criminal Intimidation.- Whoever threatens
another with any injury to his person, reputation or property,
or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that
person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that
person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not
legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that
person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.- A threat to injure the reputation of any
deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested,
is within this section."
A reading of the definition of "Criminal 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.
12. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
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 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.”
19. In the case on hand, it is not the case of the defacto complainant
that after hearing the alleged threatening made by the petitioners, she and
her relatives were criminally intimidated. As rightly contended by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, there is absolutely no
materials to show that the alleged threat given by the petitioners are real
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
and substantial. Hence, this Court has no other option but to say that the
ingredients of the offence under Section 506(1) IPC are not made out.
20. The learned Sessions Judge, without considering the above
factual aspects and the legal position in proper perspective, by simply
observing that the defacto complainant and the other witnesses have
deposed the same contents of the complaint in their statements recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and that the correctness of the statements can
only be decided at the trial, dismissed the petitions.
21. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State by the Inspector of Police, Chennai Vs.
S.Selvi and another reported in (2018) 13 SCC 455.
“7. It is well settled by this Court in catena of
judgments including the cases of Union of India v. Prafulla
Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4, Dilawar Balu Kurane v.
State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 135, Sajjan Kumar v.
CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368, State v. A.Arun Kumar (2015) 2
SCC 417, Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta (2015) 3 SCC 424,
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2003) 2 SCC 711,
Niranjan Singh Karan Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
Bijjayya (1990) 4 SCC 76 and Superintendent &
Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bangal v. Anil
Kumar Bhunja (1979) 4 SCC 274 that the Judge while
considering the question of framing charge under Section
227 of the Code in sessions cases (which is akin to Section
239 CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out; where the material
placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against
the accused which has not been properly explained, the
court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and
large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is
satisfied that the evidence produced before him while
giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion
against the accused, he will be fully within his rights to
discharge the accused. The Judge cannot act merely as a
post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to
consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect
of the statements and the documents produced before the
court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so
on. This however does not mean that the Judge should
make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the mater
and weigh the materials as if he was conducting a trial”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
22. It is settled law that at the stage of framing charges, the Court
has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused and the Court is not required to appreciate
evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not
for convicting the accused.
23. It is pertinent to note that the Courts are duty bound to
determine if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused
and if there are not sufficient grounds, then the Courts must discharge the
accused. The purpose of Section 227 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that the Court is
satisfied that the accusations made against the accused are not frivolous.
In the case on hand, there are absolutely no material sufficient enough to
frame charges and to proceed against the petitioners and as such, the
impugned order dismissing the discharge petitions cannot be sustained and
the petitioners are entitled to get discharge from the above case.
24. In the result, these Criminal Revision Cases stand allowed and
the impugned common order dated 21.11.2024 is hereby set aside. The
petitioners shall stand discharged in S.C.No.63 of 2023 on the file of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
Additional District Court, Karur. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed. No costs.
26.03.2025
NCC :yes/No
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
csm
To
1. The Additional District Judge,
Karur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Karur.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
Pre-Delivery Common Order made in
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.154 and 155 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.1588 and 1589 of 2025
Dated : 26.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
