BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 23/06/2023 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)No.5569 of 2023 and Crl.MP(MD)Nos.4867 and 4870 of 2023 Thangavel : Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.

1.State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Pattukottai Town Police Station, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District.

(In Crime No.153 of 2015) : R1/Complainant

2.Kulanthaisamy : R2/De-facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in CC No.40 of 2020 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Pattukottai, and to quash the same as illegal and pass further order or other orders.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sivabalan for Mrs.C.Bharathi For 1st Respondent : Mr.B.Nambiselvan Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This criminal original petition is filed seeking quashment of the case in CC No.40 of 2020 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Pattukottai.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 23/12/2014 at about 04.30 am, when the de-facto complainant was sleeping in his house, the accused came there with stick, hit the grill gate, abused in filthy language and also criminally intimidated. On the basis of the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No.153 of 2015 was registered for the offences under sections 147. 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. After completing the formalities of investigation, final report was filed charge sheeting the offences under sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and it was taken cognizance in CC No.110 of 2017 by the Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai and subsequently, it was transferred to Fast Track Court, Pattukottai, Thanjavur and assigned a new number as CC No.40 of 2020.

3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has been filed on the ground that the offences attracts none of the allegations mentioned either in the FIR or in the final report attract any of the ingredients of the offences as alleged.

4.Heard both sides.

5.From the factual circumstances of this case, it is seen that between the parties, a civil dispute is also pending on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pudukkottai. The de-facto complainant was supporting the de-facto complainant's party, over which only, enmity exists between the de-facto complainant and the accused herein. In the above said factual background, the present occurrence said to have been taken place. It is also seen that for the past seven years, the case is pending without any progress.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would straightaway draw the attention of this court to the allegations made in the final report. It has been simply stated that the de-facto complainant was abused in filthy language by the accused and made life threat.

7.Section 294(b) IPC reads as follows:-

"294(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."

8.Now coming to the legal ground, the statement of law on this issue has been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.S.Madhanagopal and another Vs. K.Lalitha (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844).. Let me extract the settlement of law for better appreciation.

".....the test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences". This test has been uniformly followed in India. The Supreme Court has accepted the correctness of the test in Ranjit D.Udeshi V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881. In Samuel Roth V. U.S.A., 354 US 476(1957), Chief Justice Warren said that the test of 'obscenity' is the "substantial tendency to corrupt by arousing lustful desires". Mr.Justice Harian observed that in order to be 'obscene' the matter must 'tend to sexually impure thoughts". I do not think that the words uttered in this ca