Sufficient evidence must be established to sustain charges; mere allegations without supporting evidence are insufficient.

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.62 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court I, Poonamallee.

2. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a FIR in Crime No.318 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act , (hereinafter referred to as “the TNPHW Act”), alleging that when the accused obstructing the pathway by way of putting concrete stone, the defacto complainant and others attempted to remove the same. At that juncture, there was a wordy quarrel between them and the accused scolded them with filthy language and also attacked them with wooden log. On completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in C.C.No.62 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 of IPC and Section 4 of TNPH Women Act, 2002.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

4. Admittedly, there is pathway dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. In this regard already they filed suit in O.S.No.76 of 2022 and it is pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee. That apart, the petitioners also filed complaint as against the husband of the second respondent. On perusal of the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., revealed that there are contrary between the facts and circumstances. Further there is no specific allegations alleging that the petitioner scolded the defacto complainant and others used filthy language.

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 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. 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 of 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 IPC. Further it has to be noted in the present case in the absence of words which will involve some l