Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 567
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. PONGIAPPAN, J.
S.P. Raja – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Taluk Police Station, Tirunelveli & Another – Respondents
Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 17540 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos. 7768 & 7769 of 2020
Decided on : 08-09-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Niranjan.S.Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:A.P.G. Ohm Chairma Prabhu, RMS. Sethuraman, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles to assess the prima facie establishment of offences and the expediency of permitting the prosecution to continue.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of Proceedings - IPC 294(b), IPC 506(i) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the ingredients of the offences under Section 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and referred to key legal provisions from previous judgments to interpret the elements required to establish these offences. The court applied the legal principles laid down in the judgments to analyze the allegations and statements of witnesses, ultimately quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in a case where he was facing trial for alleged offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC based on utterances directed towards the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ingredients of the offences under Section 294(b) and 506(i) IPC were not made out based on the statements of witnesses and the nature of the alleged occurrences.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether the alleged utterances constituted the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and whether the prosecution should be permitted to continue.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles from previous judgments to assess the prima facie establishment of the offences and the expediency of permitting the prosecution to continue.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in the case, concluding that it was unnecessary to permit the prosecution to continue.
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal points are as follows:
-
The court applied legal principles to evaluate whether the prosecution's case had established a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC, and whether continuing the proceedings was expedient (!) (!) .
-
The court examined the ingredients of the alleged offences, specifically whether the utterances and threats made by the petitioner constituted the offences as per legal standards, considering the statements of witnesses and the context of the incident.
-
It was determined that the statements and evidence did not sufficiently establish that the utterances were obscene or caused annoyance, nor that the threats were real or caused actual fear, as required to sustain the charges under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC.
-
The court found discrepancies and controverted statements in the evidence, indicating that the alleged occurrence did not happen in a public place and that the words used did not cause any real threat or annoyance.
-
Applying the legal test for quashing proceedings at an early stage, the court concluded that the chances of conviction were bleak, and continuing the prosecution would not serve a useful purpose.
-
As a result, the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, emphasizing that it was unnecessary to permit the prosecution to continue, thereby dismissing the criminal case at its initial stage (!) .
In summary, the judgment highlights the importance of assessing whether the evidence prima facie supports the offences and whether continuing prosecution is expedient, leading to the quashing of the case due to insufficient evidence and lack of public place occurrence or real threat.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the entire records in C.C.No.160 of 2018, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Tirunelveli and quash the same.)
1. The petitioner herein, who is the accused in C.C.No.160 of 2018, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Tirunelveli, wherein he is facing the trial for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC, has filed the above Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash all further proceedings therein.
2. In the charge sheet filed by the first respondent against the petitioner herein, it is stated that on 07.01.2018 at 04.29 p.m., the accused uttered the following words towards the second respondent/de-facto complainant, viz.,
“TAMIL”
3. The aforesaid utterances, according to the first respondent, attracts the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by placing reliance on the following decisions viz., K.Jayaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj and another [1996 (I) CTC 470] and Noble Mohandass Vs. State [1988 (2) MWN (Cr.) 184], submitted that the said utterances alleged to have been made by the petitioner/accused will not attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC.
6. On the aforesaid submissions, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent were heard, who are unable to repel the contentions put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
7. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
8. In the decision reported in 1996 (I) CTC 470, Karpagavinayagam, J. [as His Lordship then was] in Paragraph 5, has laid down as follows:-
“To prove the offence under Section 294 I.P.C. mere utterance of obscene word are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in this case.''
9. In the decision reported in 1988 (2) MWN (Cr.) 184, it has been laid down by the learned Judge of this Court, as under:-
“Further for being an offence under Section 506(2) which is rather an important offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the person uttering does not exactly mean what he says and also when the person to whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually.”
10. If in the light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid two decisions, the allegations contained in the charge sheet and in the F.I.R. and the statement of witnesses are considered, this Court is of the considered view that the ingredients of the offences under Section 294(b) and 506(i) IPC are not made out.
11. A perusal of the complaint/F.I.R. does not show that on hearing the obscene words, which were uttered by the petitioner/accused, the witnesses felt annoyed and in the statements given by the witnesses viz., Mariappan, Sudalaimuthu and Raja, they have not stated anything about the presence of the accused at the time of occurrence. In fact, they have stated in 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements that while at the time of occurrence, the petitioner herein contacted the second respondent/de-facto complainant – Siva Subbu through his mobile phone and made life threat. On the other hand, the averment found in the complaint given by the second respondent/defacto complainant shows that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner/accused herein came to his house and abused him by using filthy language. Even assuming that the story put forth by the second respondent/de-facto complainant is true one, there is no averment in the complaint as the witnesses present in the occurrence place, felt annoyed. Further, it has not been stated either in the complaint or in the 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statements given by the witnesses, as the alle
