[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Janarthanan vs State Rep.By on 13 May, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.Nos.10954 & 10974 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 29.04.2026
Pronounced on: 13.05.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.10954 & 10974 of 2023 and
Crl.MP.Nos.6903, 6917 & 6918 of 2023
Crl.OP.No.10954 of 2023
Janarthanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Rep. By,
Sub Inspector of Police,
Hosur Police Station,
Krishnagiri
(crime No.432 of 2022)
2.Mallaiya ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to
call for the records in crime No.432 of 2022 on the file of the respondent
police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Elango,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.A.S.Aswin Prasanna
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath,
Government Advocate(crl.side)
For R2 : Mr.M.P.Saravanan
Page 1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.10954 & 10974 of 2023
Crl.OP.No.10974 of 2023
Janarthanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Rep. By,
Sub Inspector of Police,
Hosur Police Station,
Krishnagiri
(crime No.130 of 2022)
2.Kiran ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to
call for the records in CC.No.87 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Hosur and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Elango,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.A.S.Aswin Prasanna
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath,
Government Advocate(crl.side)
For R2 : Mr.M.P.Saravanan
COMMON ORDER
The criminal original petition in Crl.OP.No.10954 of 2023
has been filed challenging the FIR in crime No.432 of 2022 on the file of
the respondent police. The criminal original petition in Crl.OP.No.10974
of 2023 has been filed challenging the proceedings in CC.No.87 of 2023
on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.10954 & 10974 of 2023
2. Insofar as Crl.OP.No.10974 of 2023 is concerned, on the
complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent
registered FIR in crime No.130 of 2022 for the offence punishable under
Sections 294(b), 324 and 506 Part II of IPC on the allegation that on
03.07.2022, when the defacto complainant was proceeding to his land at
about 3.30 p.m. and while he was nearing the land that belongs to the
accused, the accused had scolded him with filthy languages and
prevented the complainant from entering his land. They also threatened
the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Further, they assaulted
him by a sickle on his right wrist. That apart, they also assaulted him with
stones on his knees. Therefore, he sustained injuries, pursuant to which,
the complaint had been lodged. After completion of investigation, the
first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance
by the trial court in CC.No.87 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Hosur.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in
both the criminal original petitions submits that insofar as
Crl.OP.No.10974 of 2023 is concerned, it is based only on the counter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.10954 & 10974 of 2023
complaint after registration of FIR in crime No.129 of 2022 on the
complaint lodged by the petitioner against the second respondent and
others. In fact, after completion of investigation, the first respondent filed
final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial court and
it is pending for trial in CC.No.51 of 2023 for the offence punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 & 506 Part II IPC. In fact, the
second respondent and others came into the land owned by the petitioner
and assaulted him. They also scolded him with filthy languages. Due to
the assault, he sustained fracture and he was admitted in Government
Hospital at Hosur. Therefore, the present proceedings is nothing but a
counter blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioner and as such, the
second respondent and others are real aggressors to the occurrence. In
order to escape from the clutches of law, the second respondent had
lodged this complaint. The petitioner is an advocate who represents on
behalf of the person who filed suit as against the second respondent.
Therefore a false complaint has been foisted against the petitioner. He
further submits that thereafter another accused in crime No.129 of 2022
also lodged another complaint against the petitioner and the same was
registered in crime No.432 of 2022 for the offence punishable under
Sections 294(b), 355, 323 & 506 Part I of IPC alleging that on 02.09.2022
when the defacto complainant in Crl.OP.No.10954 of 2023 visited his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.10954 & 10974 of 2023
advocate office, he scolded him with filthy languages and he also beat
him with hands. In fact, the complaint was lodged for the alleged
occurrence that took place on 02.09.2022. There was a delay of 4 days in
the lodgment of complaint and there is absolutely no explanation by the
defacto complainant regarding the belated complaint. Hence, he prayed
for quashing the impugned proceedings in both the criminal original
petitions.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent in
both the cases submits that the petitioner is arrayed as the first accused.
There are totally three accused. There are specific overt act against the
petitioner to attract the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 & 506 Part II
of IPC. Though the petitioner lodged complaint and the same was
registered in crime No.129 of 2022, it has nothing to do with the crime
committed by the petitioner. The first respondent found that both are
aggressors and filed final report. Therefore, simultaneous trial can be
conducted in both the cases. He further submits that insofar as the FIR
registered in crime No.432 of 2022 is concerned, the defacto complainant
was threatened with dire consequences and he was also beaten up by the
petitioner by his hands. Therefore, he did not lodge complaint on the date
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.10954 & 10974 of 2023
of occurrence and only after four days from the date of the occurrence, he
lodged complaint. He further submits that the entire proceedings can be
quashed since this Court has no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of
witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their
statements. Further, this Court should not embark upon an enquiry into
the validity of the evidence available. Further, when there are disputed
facts, it cannot be considered for quashment of the entire proceedings
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the grounds raised by the
petitioner can be considered only before the trial court during trial. In
support of his contention he also relied upon the order of this Court in
Crl.OP.No.20648 of 2023 dated 08.04.2025.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused all the materials placed before this Court.
6. Admittedly the petitioner is an advocate who filed suit in
OS.No.114 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Hosur on behalf
of a person namely Mallesh against the defacto complainant for partition
in respect of the property comprised in survey Nos.933 to 935 to an
extent of 10.84 acres into 9 equal shares by metes and bounds and also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.10954 & 10974 of 2023
for permanent injunction and declaration of gift deed dated 21.09.1984
and Will dated 11.01.1994 as null and void. Further, on the date of the
occurrence, the defacto complainant and others came to the land owned
by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was assaulted by the second
respondent and others due to which the petitioner sustained fracture.
Therefore, immediately he was taken to Government Hospital, Hosur and
was admitted as in-patient. On recording his statement, the first
respondent registered FIR in crime No.129 of 2022 for the offence
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506 Part II of IPC.
After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report
and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial court in CC.No.51 of
2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Hosur and it is pending for
trial. For the very same occurrence, the second respondent lodged
complaint and managed to register FIR in crime No.130 of 2022 for the
offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 & 506 Part II of IPC.
According to the second respondent, he also sustained injuries on his
right wrist and the petitioner attacked him with sickle. Further, on perusal
of the wound certificate, no injury is found on his right wrist. There is
abrasion on his left elbow and left knee joint. There is tenderness in his
right thigh. Whereas the petitioner sustained injuries and suffered with
fracture on his right foot. However, the first respondent found both are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.10954 & 10974 of 2023
aggressors and filed separate final report for both the crimes. Further,
admittedly the occurrence took place in the land owned by the petitioner.
Therefore, the second respondent and others went to the land owned by
the petitioner to attack the petitioner. As such, the second respondent and
others in crime No.129 of 2022 are the real aggressors and in order to
counter blast, the second respondent also lodged another complaint
against the petitioner. Therefore, it is nothing but clear abuse of process
of law and it cannot be sustained. Though the other accused persons did
not file any quash petition, in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court
is inclined to quash the entire impugned proceedings.
7. Insofar as Crl.OP.No.10954 of 2023 is concerned, it has been
filed to quash the FIR in crime No.432 of 2022 on the file of the first
respondent registered on the allegation that on 02.09.2022, when the
second respondent visited his advocate office and while he was returning
to his house, he went to a tea shop to have a cup of tea. At that juncture,
the accused scolded him with filthy languages and also threatened with
dire consequences. He was also assaulted by hands. However, the second
respondent lodged complaint only on 06.09.2022. There is absolutely no
reason for the four days delay in lodgment of complaint. This complaint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.10954 & 10974 of 2023
is subsequent to the FIR registered in crime Nos.129 and 130 of 2022.
Moreoever, in order to attract the offence under Sections 294(b), 355, 323
& 506 Part I of IPC, there is absolutely no allegation to make out prima
facie case to register FIR.
8. To attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there
must be an uttering of words in or near any public place to affect the
person. In this regard it is relevant to extract Section 294(b) of IPC, as
follows:-
"294. Obscene acts and songs —Whoever, to the
annoyance of others—
(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."
9. Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the
petitioner in a public place as such to constitute the offence under Section
294(b) of IPC, there are no averments and allegations. It is relevant to
rely upon the judgment reported in “Pawan Kumar v. State of
Haryana), (1996) 4 SCC 17”wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.10954 & 10974 of 2023
held thus:—
“9. In order to secure a conviction, the provision
requires two particulars to be proved by the prosecution, i.e.
(i) the offender has done any obscene act in any public
place or has sung, recited or uttered any obscene songs or
words in or near any public place; and (ii) has so caused
annoyance to others. If the act complained of is not
obscene, or is not done in any public place, or the song
recited or uttered is not obscene, or is not sung, recited or
uttered in or near any public place, or that it causes no
annoyance to others, the offence is not committed. ….”
10. Therefore, to prove the offence under Section 294 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
also 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.
11. Insofar as the offence under Section 506 Part II of I.P.C is
concerned, it is relevant to extract the provision of Section 506 Part II of
IPC hereunder:
“506. Punishment for criminal intimidation - Whoever
commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.10954 & 10974 of 2023
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc - and if
the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause
the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an
offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life],
or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or
with both.”
12. It is relevant to rely the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v.
State Of Uttar Pradesh &Anr[2025 INSC 19], wherein it was held as
follows:
“13. Let us now examine the next charge for
which the appellant stands accused. For an offence u/s
503 to be established, it must be shown that:- (1)
Threatening a person with any injury; (i) to his person,
reputation or property; or (ii) to the person, or
reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested.
(2) Such threat must be intentional; (i) to cause alarm to
that person; or (ii) to cause that person to do any act
which he is not legally bound to do as the means of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.10954 & 10974 of 2023
avoiding the execution of such threat; or (iii) to cause
that person to omit to do any act which that person is
legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat. Punishment for this offence is
prescribed u/s 506 IPC, which is two years or with a fine
or both, as applicable to this case.
13.1 Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka [(2015) 7
SCC 423] as affirmed by a bench of three judges in
Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab [(2020) 8 SCC 811] ,
records the principle of application of Section 506, IPC
in the following terms: –
“11.…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.
13. …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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.10954 & 10974 of 2023
placed on record to show that the intention is to cause
alarm to the complainant….”
13. Further, this Court has also held in a plethora of judgments
that empty threat does not prima facie mean that the case U/s.506, IPC is
made out against the accused. Hence, in face no case is made out against
the accused. Also in the case on hand, even according to the case of the
prosecution, the alleged threats issued by the accused were only empty
threats and they had no effect on the second respondent and did not cause
any fear amongst the second respondent and their family.
14. Further, insofar as the offence under Section 324 of IPC in
respect of the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.10974 of 2023 is concerned, there
was absolutely no injury sustained by the second respondent and as such,
the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 324 of IPC are not
made out. Therefore, both the impugned proceedings are clear abuse of
process of law and they cannot be sustained.
15. In view of the above discussion, both the criminal original
petitions are allowed and the entire impugned proceedings in both the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.10954 & 10974 of 2023
criminal original petitions are quashed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
13.05.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.10954 & 10974 of 2023
To
1.Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur
2.State Rep. By,
Sub Inspector of Police,
Hosur Police Station,
Krishnagiri
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.10954 & 10974 of 2023
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
Crl.O.P.Nos.10954 & 10974 of 2023
13.05.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
