ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.934 of 2020, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur, Salem District, registered in Crime No.171 of 2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was running a Milk Company in the name and style of Arputha Milk Product Cilling Centre at Thalaivasal. The 2nd respondent was working in the petitioner's Milk Company as Supervisor for the past six years. During the course of the business, the petitioner facing loss hence, the 2nd respondent helped him by giving cash and 21 sovereigns of gold jewels to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner resigned his job and doing real estate business. While that been so, the 2nd respondent approached the petitioner to return back his cash and jewels, but the petitioner did not returned the same. On 03.03.2020 at about 04.00 p.m., when the 2nd respondent asked the petitioner to return the jewels and cash, the petitioner scolded him with filthy language and assaulted him and threatened him. Hence, the 2nd respondent escaped from there and went to his Aunt's house at Salem and preferred a complaint before the 1st respondent police on 05.06.2020. On receipt of the same, the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.171 of 2020.

3. Heart both sides, and perused the materials available on record.

4. Admittedly, the occurrence was took place on 03.03.2020 at about

14.00 hrs, whereas the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent was only on 05.06.2020 at about 17.45 hrs. Further, there is absolutely no valid explanation submitted by the de-facto complainant for the belated complaint.

5. On a perusal of the records, it revealed that there are no specific averments and allegations to attract under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC. The occurrence took place at the house of the de-facto complainant therefore, the offence under Section 294(b) IPC cannot be attracted as against the petitioner.

6. 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."

7. Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioner 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner annoyed others, it can not be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out.

8. 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 utterance of obscence words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case."

The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case and therefore, the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not at all attracted as against the petitioner.

9. Insofar as the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C is concerned, to attract the offence, threat and intention to cause an alarm are main ingredients. The third ingredient is that the intention must be to cause any person to do any act which he is not legally bou