Allegations must be specific and supported by evidence to constitute offences under IPC; vague claims lead to quashing of proceedings as an abuse of process.

ORDER

This petition has been filed challenging the charge sheet in STC.No.446 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I, Tirupattur.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

3. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.209 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC , on the allegation that the petitioner came to the house of the second respondent and threatened her not to attend the Court on 04.08.2022 and if she appears before the Court, he will kill her. After completion of investigation, the final report has been filed in STC.No.446 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I, Tirupattur.

4. It is seen that the entire allegations are bald and vague and the second respondent did not even whisper about the date on which the petitioner came to her house and scolded her with filthy language. That apart, no specific allegation is made as against the petitioner as if he scolded with particular words.

5. To attract the offences 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 , 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."

6. 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 cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of is made out. 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 petitioners.

7. 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 bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, subsequent to the main ingredients. Whereas in the case on hand, even according to the case of the prosecution, the alleged threats issued by the petitioner were only empty threats and they had no effect on the complainant.

8. In this regard, It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014 in the case of Abdul Agis Vs. State through the Inspector of Police , which reads as follows:-

“7.It is seen from the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C . of the second respondent/ defacto complainant that it does not contain any obscene words, which were uttered by the petitioner herein and the entire allegations are very simple in nature. It is also seen from the statement of one Uthami, that the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences when he dashed the defacto complainant. The entire allegations are trivial in nature. Further, to attract the offence und