Abusive language does not constitute obscenity under IPC; delay in filing complaint warrants quashing of proceedings.

O R D E R

The petitioner is an accused in CC No.2115/2017 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Ernakulam. It is a prosecution initiated against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 509 of IPC .

2. The 2 nd respondent is the defacto complainant. The crime was registered against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint lodged by the 2 nd respondent. It is alleged in the complaint that, on 10.03.2017 at 08.30 PM, the petitioner who was on enimical terms with the brother of the 2 nd respondent, abuse her and lifted his “Mundu” ( മു്ᩂ് പ ൊ്ᨪികാണി്ᨴു ) and thereby committed the offence under Sections 294 (b) and 509 of IPC . Annexures A and B are the F .I.R. and the First Information Statement. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out against the petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. According to the petitioner, he availed a loan from the District Co-Operative Bank, Chittoor Branch by depositing original sale deed No.3492/0997 of Ernakulam S.R.O. and other related documents. He closed his loan account on 25.02.2016 and requested to return the original title deed and other documents, is the submission. The Branch Manager informed the petitioner that, the original sale deed and all other documents is already taken by the brothers of the petitioner including the husband of the 2 nd respondent. Then the petitioner filed a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Central Police Station, Ernakulam against the husband of the 2 nd respondent and others. In pursuance of which, Crime No.2511/2016 was registered under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC , as evident by Annexure-D on 04.11.2016.

The Investigating OfÏcer, after completing the investigation, filed a final report, which was taken on file as CC No.113/2017 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam is the submission. Subsequently, the case was transferred to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam and renumbered. Annexure-E is the final report. The husband of the 2 nd respondent is the 1 st accused in Annexure-E is the submission. It is submitted that, during the investigation of Annexure-D crime, the accused were released on anticipatory bail. After getting the bail order, it is alleged that the accused appeared before the Investigating OfÏcer on 11.03.2017 and executed a bail bond. Subsequently, on the same day at 03.30 PM, the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Annexure-D trespassed into the house of the petitioner and abused him and his wife using filthy language and threatened to kill them, which resulted in Annexures F and G FIR and F .I. Statement under Section 294 (b), 447, 505(ii), 509 r/w 34 of IPC . Since the bail conditions are violated by the accused in Annexure-E final report, an application was filed to cancel the anticipatory bail and the learned Sessions Judge canceled the anticipatory bail to the accused as evident by Annexure-H. Thereafter, for the alleged incident happened on 10.03.2017 at 08.30 PM, the defacto complainant filed the present complaint on 11.04.2017 after a delay of 31 days, which resulted to the present case. Annexure-C is the final report.

5. A perusal of Annexure-C final report would show that, there is a delay of 31 days in filing the present complaint. The alleged incident happened on 10.03.2017 and the complaint was filed on 11.04.2017. It is to be remembered that, a case is registered against the husband of the defacto complainant in this case, as evident by Annexures F and G on 11.03.2017. Thereafter, on 11.04.2017, the present complaint was filed, which resulted in Annexures A and B FIR and Annexure-C final report. I am of the considered opinion that, Annexure-C final report is to be quashed for the non explanation of the delay in filing the complaint itself.

6. Moreover, the offence under Se