IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.11.2023 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.8370 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.5508 & 5509 of 2021

1) Leena

2) Reena ... Petitioners -Vs-

1) The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, S-15, Selaiyur Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

(Crime.No.927 of 2018)

2) Sarojini Sathish ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in connection with C.C.No.60 of 2019 dated 19.02.2019 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, Chennai and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sabarish For Respondent 1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

For Respondent 2 : No appearance

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.60 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, Chennai having been taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 448 and 506(i) of IPC.

nd

2. Though notice was served to the 2 respondent, no one appeared on nd behalf of the 2 respondent before this Court either in person or by pleader.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the Defacto-complainant owned flat and she had parked her car in the car parking which was allotted to her. In respect of the parking cars, there was a dispute between the petitioners and the nd nd 2 respondent. While being on 16.08.2018, it was questioned by the 2 respondent, for which the petitioners scolded her in a filthy languages and nd threatened her with dire consequences. Admittedly, the petitioners and the 2 respondent are living in the same apartment and there was a dispute in respect of parking their cars.

nd

4. Even according to the 2 respondent, on 16.08.2018 when she was in the house along with other family members, the petitioners entered into the nd house and scolded with filthy languages. Except the family members of the 2 st respondent, no other persons were enquired by the 1 respondent in order to nd prove the charges. That apart, the occurrence took place in the house of the 2 respondent.

5. 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."

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

7. 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.

8. 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