ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.619 of 2019 dated 10.11.2019 on the file of the 1st respondent police.

2. Heard, V. Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A. Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

3. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the third respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.619 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 448, 294(b) and 427 of IPC alleging that on 10.11.2019, the petitioner and another person damaged the sign board and name board affixed in the shop.

4. A perusal of the records reveals that the petitioner's mother owned property with buildings consisting three floors, bearing Door No.223, GST Road, Chrompet, Chennai – 600 044. The third respondent approached petitioner's father for renting out the 1st and 2nd floors to run a business of fancy items and garments. Based on the said request, the petitioner and the third respondent entered into an agreement on 04.10.2016. The third respondent committed default in payment of rent from October, 2017 onwards. Therefore, the petitioner's mother caused legal notice, demanding immediate payment of arrears of rents and also to hand over vacant possession. In furtherance of the same, the third respondent vacated and handed over the subject property to his mother. Thereafter, on 17.11.2019, when the petitioner, along with his staff, went to the subject property for renovation, the third respondent trespassed into the said premises by breaking open the locks of the premises. When it was questioned by the petitioner and another, the third respondent and others attacked them and also threatened them with dire consequences. Immediately, the petitioner was admitted in Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Chrompet, Chennai. On information received from the hospital, FIR has been registered in Crime No.613 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 341, 324 of IPC as against the third respondent and others.

5. While being so, the petitioner was asked to come for an enquiry on the present impugned complaint lodged by the third respondent. Though the first respondent registered an FIR for the offence under Section 448, 294(b) and 427 of IPC, there are absolutely no averment to attract the offence. Even according to the third respondent, the petitioner and another damaged the name board and sign board of the office. Except this, no other allegations are made to attract the offence alleged against the petitioner.

6. Even according to the defacto complainant, there is no averment to trespass into the shop. However, he made allegation that when it was questioned by him, he was scolded in filthy language by the petitioner herein. It is settled principles of law that to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, the obscene act in the public place would have causes annoyance to others. Admittedly, there was no obscene act and therefore, nothing could have caused any annoyance to others. Therefore, no amount of ingredients to attract the provision under Section 294 (b) of IPC or absolutely was found by the third respondent to lodge the present case.

7. 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 petitioner as such to constitute the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there is no averment and allegation. 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