Madras High Court
Shruthi Thilak vs The State Rep By on 28 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.7425 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.7425 of 2024
and Crl.M.P.No.5388 of 2024
Shruthi Thilak ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
G-7, Chetpet Police Station,
Kilpauk,
Chennai – 600 008
2. Sabina ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records in FIR No.219 of 2022 dated 07.12.2022
on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karthikei Balan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.K.Vinothraja
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.K.M.Mohamed Riyasath Ali
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
FIR in Crime No.219 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 06:07:40 pm )
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 448 &
506(1) of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint lodged
by the second respondent, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime
No.219 of 2022, alleging that the second respondent is the servant maid
of the petitioner’s husband. Already the petitioner and her husband had
family disputes. While being so, on 11.09.2022, when the second
respondent was doing her work in the house of the petitioner’s husband,
the petitioner came to the house and quarrelled with her husband.
Thereafter on 25.09.2022, the petitioner left her matrimonial home along
with her two children, without informing anybody. Further on
27.09.2024, the petitioner through phone scolded the second respondent,
and strictly warned her not to come to her husband's house for any work.
Thereafter on 11.10.2022, when the second respondent and her husband
were not in their house, the petitioner had sent some persons to their
house and threatened the entire family members with dire consequences.
Hence, the complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 06:07:40 pm )
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner got married one Dr.Prabhu Thilak on 24.10.2007 and
due to difference of opinion between them and extra marital affairs of her
husband, the petitioner was driven out from her matrimonial home and
she got separated on 29.12.2021. Due to cruelty and harassment made
against the petitioner, she lodged domestic violence complaint in
DVC.No.95 of 2022 as against her husband, on the file of the XXIII
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and it is pending for trial.
Her husband is the son of former Director General of Police and as such
he misused the power and foisted false case as against the petitioner for
several offences, and the present impugned FIR is one among them. He
further submitted that the petitioner’s husband also filed a divorce
petition in H.M.O.P.No.1320 of 2023 and it is pending on the file of the
III Additional Family Court, Chennai. Now, the present complaint was
filed through his house servant maid viz., the second respondent herein.
In fact she doesn’t know read and write in any language.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 06:07:40 pm )
5. It is seen that on 11.10.2022, when the second respondent
and her husband were not in their house, the petitioner had sent some
persons to there and threatened the other family members with dire
consequences. Insofar as the offences registered as against the petitioner
in FIR, no offenece is made out as per the allegations levelled against the
petitioner. In order 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
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or
with both."
6. Admittedly, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 06:07:40 pm )
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.
7. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 238 in the case of Om Prakash
Ambedkar Vs. State of Maharastra and ors, in which the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India held that the test of obscenity under Section
294(b) of IPC is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity
is to deprave and corrupt those, whose minds are open to such immoral
influences. This Court finds that the words uttered in this case have such
a tendency. The words are defamatory about the complainant but this
Court doesn't think that the words are obscene and the utterance would
constitute an offence punishable under Section 294(b) of IPC. Further it
has to be noted in the present case in 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) of IPC. Mere
abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 06:07:40 pm )
offence under Section 294(b) of IPC. Therefore, 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 accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the
ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out.
Therefore, no case is made out as against the petitioners to attract the
offence under Section 294(b) of IPC.
8. As far as the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C is
concerned, to attract the offence, threat and intention to cause an alarm
are main ingredients. The third ingredient is that the intention must be to
cause any 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, subsequent
to the main ingredients. Whereas in the case on hand, even according to
the case of the prosecution, the alleged threats issued by the petitioner
were only empty threats and they had no effect on the complainant.
9. In this regard, It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 06:07:40 pm )
Court made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014 in the case of Abdul Agis
Vs. State through the Inspector of Police, which reads as follows:-
“7.It is seen from the statements recorded under
Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. of the second respondent/
defacto complainant that it does not contain any obscene
words, which were uttered by the petitioner herein and
the entire allegations are very simple in nature. It is also
seen from the statement of one Uthami, that the petitioner
threatened the defacto complainant with dire
consequences when he dashed the defacto complainant.
The entire allegations are trivial in nature. Further, to
attract the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C., there
was a threatening only by words. As pointed by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the threat
should be a real one and not just a mere word when the
petition uttering does not exactly mean what he says and
also when the person to whom threat is launched does not
feel threatened actually. Therefore, the offences under
Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. are not made out as
against the petitioner herein and also the entire criminal
proceedings is clear an abuse of process of Court.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the entire
proceedings.”
10. Insofar as the offence under Section 442 of IPC is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 06:07:40 pm )
concerned, even according to the second respondent, the petitioner never
went to her house. some third persons have gone to her house and have
threatened the family members of the second respondent and her husband
in their house. All are hear-say allegations that too not against the
petitioner. However, FIR has been registered as against the petitioner
alone. Therefore, the offence under Section 448 of IPC, did not attract as
against the petitioner.
11. In fact, one of the cases initiated as against the petitioner for
the offence under Section 294(b), 506 (1) of IPC, r/w. Section 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s) of the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, ended in acquittal in Special S.C.No.161 of 2023 by an order dated
17.03.2025 by the learned Principal Session Judge, Chenni. In that order,
the trial Court observed that the complaint was fabricated as against the
petitioner only to wreck vengeance and it is nothing but matrimonial
discard between the petitioner and her husband, by exerting pressure
upon the higher police officials. It shows that the petitioner’s husband
misused the power of police and has kept registering the FIR as against
the petitioner. The entire complaint registered as against the petitioner is
nothing but a clear abuse of process of law and for wrecking vengeance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 06:07:40 pm )
as against the petitioner.
12. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the judgement reported
in (1992) SCC Crl. 426 in the case of Bajanlal v. State of Haryana,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has listed out the following
category of case in which the criminal proceedings can be quashed using
the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
"102..........
(1) where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused;
(2) where the allegations in the First Information
Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investi- gation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against the accused;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 06:07:40 pm )
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on
the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institu- tion and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party;
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge."
Therefore, the impugned complaint is nothing but clear abuse of process
of law and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 06:07:40 pm )
13. In view of the above discussions, the impugned FIR in
Crime No.219 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent, is hereby
quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
G-7, Chetpet Police Station,
Kilpauk,
Chennai – 600 008
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 06:07:40 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
28.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 06:07:40 pm )
