1. Dispute over waste water flow leading to a complaint for offences under Sections 294(b) and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1243
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
N.S. Madhanagopal and Another – Appellants
Versus
K. Lalitha – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1759 of 2022, S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6039 of 2022
Decided On : 10-10-2022
Important Points
The judgment emphasizes the need for specific evidence to establish the elements of alleged offences and the requirement of a judicious approach before issuing process.
Subject
Criminal Law - Obscenity and Restraint Offences
Act Referred
Headnote
Obscene Acts and Songs - Criminal Proceedings - IPC 294(b), 341 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appeal is against the order of the High Court declining to quash criminal proceedings for offences under IPC Sections 294(b) and 341. The complaint arose from a verbal altercation over excessive flow of waste water in a residential enclave.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint failed to establish the necessary ingredients for the offences under IPC Sections 294(b) and 341. It emphasized the requirement of specific evidence to prove obscenity and annoyance for IPC 294(b), and the elements of obstruction and intent for IPC 341.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of the complaint to establish the alleged offences under IPC Sections 294(b) and 341, and the judicial approach required for taking cognizance and issuing process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for specific evidence to establish obscenity and annoyance for IPC 294(b), and the elements of obstruction and intent for IPC 341. It also highlighted the requirement of a judicious approach and material prima-facie before issuing process.
Final Decision: The court quashed the criminal proceedings pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Tamil Nadu, as the complaint failed to establish the alleged offences. The appeal was allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : S. Vallinayagam, M.A. Chinnasamy, C. Rubavathi, C. Raghavendren, M. Veera Ragavan, Kajal Singhal, Rajeev Gupta.
For the Respondents: Zulfiqar Ali Khan, K. Bhuvaneswari, R. Sarala, Md. Shahid Anwar.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : S. Vallinayagam, M.A. Chinnasamy, C. Rubavathi, C. Raghavendren, M. Veera Ragavan, Kajal Singhal, Rajeev Gupta.
For the Respondents: Zulfiqar Ali Khan, K. Bhuvaneswari, R. Sarala, Md. Shahid Anwar.
Table of Contents
2. Appellants challenged the refusal to quash criminal proceedings, contending that the complaint failed to disclose the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences. (Para 2 )
3. The court observed that abusive words lack the lascivious element required for obscenity and the complaint failed to establish the voluntary obstruction necessary for wrongful restraint. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 )
4. Obscenity under Section 294(b) IPC requires a tendency to deprave and corrupt or arouse lustful desires; mere abusive or defamatory words are insufficient. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. The impugned order was set aside and the criminal proceedings were quashed. (Para 14 )
6. What constitutes an offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC?
An offence under Section 294(b) requires the utterance of obscene words in or near a public place to the annoyance of others. The test for obscenity is whether the matter tends to deprave and corrupt those open to immoral influences or arouses lustful desires. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
7. Do abusive or defamatory words attract Section 294(b) of the IPC?
No, mere abusive, humiliating, or defamatory words do not attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC unless they contain lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings. (Para 9 )
8. What are the essential ingredients for an offence of wrongful restraint under Section 341 of the IPC?
To attract Section 341, it must be proved that the accused voluntarily obstructed a person, thereby preventing them from proceeding in a direction in which they had a right to proceed. (Para 11 )
9. What is the requirement for a Magistrate when taking cognizance and issuing process under the Cr.P.C.?
Taking cognizance under Section 190(1) and issuing process under Section 204 are judicial functions requiring the application of a judicial mind to ensure prima facie material exists and allegations are not too vague. (Para 13 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is at the instance of the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 resply in a complaint lodged by the respondent herein before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Alandur, Tamil Nadu for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 341 resply of the Indian Penal Code (For short “The IPC”) and is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 1st April, 2022 in Crl. O.P. No. 5697 of 2019 by which the High Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings instituted by the respondent herein (original complainant). The High Court ultimately rejected the application filed by the appellants herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Cr.P.C.).
3. It appears from the materials on record that the parties to this litigation are residing at one common enclave called the Sadagopan Enclave, Kannappan Street, Chromepet Road, Nanmangalam, Chennai. The respondent herein, the original complainant filed an Application No. STC No. 566 of 2018 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Alandur and prayed for an order of police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. or to take cognizance under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. On the fateful day of the incident, the parties entered into a verbal altercation on the issue of excessive flow of waste water in the society.
4. We have gone through the entire complaint lodged by the respondent herein. We asked the learned counsel appearing for the respondent (original complainant) to take us to that part of the complaint which constitutes an offence. To put in other words, the necessary averments in the complaint disclosing the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 294(b) and 341 resply of the IPC.
5. In the aforesaid context, our attention has been invited to the following paragraphs of the complaint which read as under:
“3. The complainant humbly submits that she has been elected as a Treasurer for the Sadagopan Enclave Residents Association on 15.08.2017 which is a registered one and working for the welfare of the society along with the President, Secretary and four Executive members.
4. The complainant further submits that the residents have been promised by the promoters about the sewage treatment plant, Gym, Kids Play Park, Roads, etc., as early as possible. Now the project has completed its eight years and still there were seven houses not yet registered. The waste water is going into the lands belonging to the land owners and nearby land for the past eight years. Two years before the adjacent land owner on north side objected for the flow of waste water which made to take a decision to control the flow and keep it onto the lands of land owners only. The land owners had accepted to the office bearers of 2016-17 to dig their land with the help of JBC and the waste water had run into that said lands.
5. The complainant further submits that the Current Office Bearers have received a continuous and constant complaint from the residents adjacent to the septic tank about the excessive flow of waste water and the said office bearers have tried to control the water flow by Using 21 round cement stones into the earth and the maximum water flow is going outside. But the said residents were not at all satisfied and reported in the whatsapp that reptiles are coming to their house due to the septic tank and wanted to bulk sewage treatment plant. In the society meetings of the previous office bearers, the STP quotation is 35 lakhs which was refused by the society members i.e. residents.
6. The complainant further submits that mean while the resident of Plot No. 7F adjacent to the septic tank has tried to level and build some construction work in the STP area and the necessary materials were supplied and kept in the common STP area, it was opposed by all the residents but the said resident has argued that he is the man aggrieved and he is having the land over there as per his legal documents. The cur
