The court emphasized the significance of the alibi defense supported by documents obtained under the Right to Information Act and the impact of delay in filing the charge sheet on the quashing of charges.

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1. The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.60 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

2. The petitioners have been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 427 and 506(ii) IPC. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.06.2012 at about 5.00 a.m, when the defacto complainant proceeded to purchase milk, the petitioners and another scolded with filthy language and caused damages to the fencing and also threatened with dire consequences by showing deadly weapons.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that except the offence under Section 294(b) IPC, the other offences are non-cognizable offences. The period of limitation for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is one year. In the present case, the occurrence allegedly took place on 05.06.2012 and charge sheet has been filed on 12.02.2015. Therefore, the charge for the offence under Section 294(b) is hit by Section 468 Cr.P.C and the same is liable to be quashed. Further, he would submit that on the date of alleged occurrence i.e on 05.06.2012, the second petitioner herein was working as Special Grade Assistant Engineer and he attended duty on "5" shift at about 5.56 a.m and returned to home at 2.10 p.m from Sivagangai Graphite Mines. Therefore, the second petitioner was not there at the place of occurrence namely Mavilai within the jurisdiction of Karungal Police Station and he prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.60 of 2015.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the plea of alibi cannot be considered by this Court that too exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Further, he would contend that there are specific averments made in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C by the witnesses to connect the charges against the petitioners. Further he would submit that the grounds raised by the petitioners would be gone into in full-fledged trial and it cannot be considered now. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners and another and trial has to be proceeded. Only during the trial, the points raised by the petitioner can be considered and he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent and learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

7. Admittedly, the occurrence took place on 05.06.2012 and the charge sheet has been laid by the first respondent on 12.02.2015. The offence under Section 294(b) IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. Therefore, the period of limitation for filing charge sheet is one year. But, there is delay in filing the charge sheet and therefore, the charge for the offence under Section 294(b) is directly hit by Section 468 Cr.P.C.

8. To attract offence under Section 294(b) IPC, there must be presence of specific words used by the accused persons. For the sake of convenience, Section 294(b) IPC is extracted hereunder:

(b) Obscene acts and songs-Whoever, to the annoyance of others--sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, inn 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. On a perusal of the First Information Report in Crime No.353 of 2012, it is seen that there are only vague and bald allegations of criminal intimidation and except that, the complainant has not stated any specific words uttered by the accused persons. The specific case of the second respondent/complainan