IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.11.2023 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.OP.No.25083 of 2021 and Crl.MP.No.13814 of 2021 Gabriel @ Kabiriyel ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State Rep. By the Inspector of Police, Manalmedu Police Station, Mayiladuthurai

2.Velmurugan ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal original petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in STC.No.225 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I Court, Mayiladuthurai and to quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thirumoorthy For Respondents For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate(Crl.side)

For R2 : No appearance

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in STC.No.225 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Court, Mayiladuthurai, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent lodged complaint alleging that on 12.06.2019 at about 10.30 p.m., he received a phone call from the petitioner, wherein the petitioner alleged to have abused him and issued life threat to him over phone. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in crime No.126 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC. After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial court in STC.No.225 of 2019.

3. On perusal of records, even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner alleged to have threatened the defacto complainant over phone. Therefore, no offence is made out under Section 294(b) of IPC. That apart, when the petitioner is a life convict and he was on parole, the present case has been registered against the petitioner. Even according to the second respondent, the petitioner phoned to him and scolded him with filthy languages and he also threatened him with dire consequences.

4. 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."

5. 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 IPC is made out.

6. 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 petitioner.

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,