Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 12658
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
EZHILARASAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.5973 of 2025
Mr.M.Nagoor Moideen, Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
The absence of evidence and witnesses to support the allegations led to the quashing of the FIR, emphasizing that mere abusive words do not constitute an offence under Section 294(b) of IPC.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 379, 430, 294(b), 353, and 506(i) - Quashing of FIR - The petitioner sought to quash an FIR alleging theft, obstruction, obscene acts, and threats, asserting lack of presence at the scene and absence of witnesses - The court found no evidence of a lake at the scene, and no obscene words were uttered to annoy others, thus failing to establish the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) - The court emphasized that mere abusive words do not constitute obscenity under Section 294(b) - The FIR was quashed due to lack of evidence and abuse of process of court. (Paras 3, 6, 8, and 10)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Abuse of process - The court noted that the FIR had been pending for seven years without investigation, indicating an abuse of judicial process. (Paras 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
The FIR was registered against the petitioner for alleged offences during a police patrol, but the petitioner was not present at the scene and there were no witnesses to the occurrence.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIR could not be sustained due to lack of evidence and quashed it, stating that the proceedings were an abuse of process.
Issues: The main issues included whether the FIR was justified based on the evidence and whether the alleged offences were made out.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of evidence to support the allegations and the lack of legal grounds for the offences led to the conclusion that the FIR was baseless.
Result: FIR quashed.
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.450 of 2018 on the file of the respondent, registered for the offences under Sections 379, 430 , 294(b) , 353 and 506(i) of IPC , as against the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.08.2018, at about 7.00 a.m, the respondent was on patrol, when a sound was heard from the truck, which was found to be filled with lake sand. Subsequently, the respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No.450 of 2018 as against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offences under Sections 379, 430 , 294(b) , 353 and 506(i) of IPC . That apart, the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence and was studying at the time of alleged occurrence. Further, there is no witness to the occurrence. It shows that the FIR was registered as against the petitioner out of personal vengeance.
4. A perusal of the revenue records reveals that there is no lake at the alleged scene of occurrence and there is no river. It is only a lotus pond. Further, even as per the FIR, there were no obstructions for the petitioner to attract the offence under Section 353 of IPC .
5. In order 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 , 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 can not be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of is made out.
7. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 238 in the case of Om Prakash Ambedkar Vs. State of Maharastra and ors, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the test of obscenity under Section 294(b) of IPC is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those, whose minds are open to such immoral influences. This Court finds that the words uttered in this case have such a tendency. The words are defamatory about the complainant but this Court doesn't think that the words are obscene and the utterance would constitute an offence punishable under Section 294(b) of . Further it has to be noted in the present case in the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b) of . Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) of . Therefore, there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case. 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 accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of is made out. Therefore, no case is made out as against the petitioner to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of .
8. In order to attract the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C threat and intention to cause an alarm are main ingredients
