ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.6 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Senthurai, as against the petitioners.

2. Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.12.2019, at about 9 a.m., the accused persons attacked the defacto complainant / second respondent while he was coming on his two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 61E 2178 by their hands and legs. When the defacto complainant escaped from the hands of the accused and even then, the accused persons chased him and pulled him from his house and attacked him, thereby they caused injuries to the defacto complainant. On the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR for the offence under Sections 147, 427, 294(b), 323, 355, 506(i) & 352 of IPC and after completion of investigation, filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in CC.No.6 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Senthurai.

4. On perusal of records, on 28.07.2019, the second respondent herein stabbed the fifth petitioner by knife at about 7.45 p.m., due to which he sustained grievous injuries and on the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in crime No.57 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 324, 307 IPC. Thereafter, the second respondent was remanded to the judicial custody. Therefore, the present complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law and it was lodged maliciously with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance. For the very same occurrence, the petitioners also lodged complaint as against the second respondent and the same was registered in crime No.96 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 147, 427, 294(b), 323, 355, 506(i) & 352 of IPC and on investigation, they are to file final report as 'mistake of fact'. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent alone, the first respondent filed charge sheet and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial court in CC.No.6 of 2020. It is also seen that there was previous enmity between both the groups. That apart, on the occurrence, the second respondent had not sustained any injuries in order to attract offence under Section 323 of IPC and no doctor was examined and no records to show that he was treated in the hospital. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the vehicle was also damaged by the petitioners. However, the first respondent failed to seize the two wheeler and there is absolutely no evidence to show that the petitioners attacked the second respondent by their hands and legs.

Therefore, the entire allegations are bald and vague.

5. To attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there must be an uttering of words to affect the person who lodged the complaint. In this regard it is relevant to extract the Section 294(b) of IPC, as follows :-

"294. Obscene acts and songs —Whoever, to the annoyance of others— (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (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."

Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioners as such to constitute the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there is no averments and allegations. Further the charges do not show that on hearing the obscene words, which were allegedly uttered by the petitioners, the witnesses felt annoyed. No one has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the petitioners annoyed others, it can not be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out.

6. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in 1996(1) CTC 470 in the case of K.Jeyaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj & anr., which held as follows :-

"To prove the offence under Section 294 of IPC mere ut