The court ruled that without evidence of annoyance caused by alleged utterances, the charges under IPC Sections 294(b) and 505(i) are not established.

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Cr.No.668 of

2023 on the file of the first respondent.

2. The second respondent has lodged a complaint that the petitioner had made derogatory and malicious remarks as against the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamilnadu and the Minister of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department.

3. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent registered an FIR in Cr.No.668 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b) , 505(i) of IPC . Even before the registration of an FIR, the petitioner was called for an enquiry under Section 41A of Cr.P.C to be conducted on 13.06.2023. After detailed enquiry, the first respondent found that there is no material to take further action and dropped the complaint. Thereafter, FIR has been registered by the first respondent.

4. The specific case of the petitioner is that he has utmost respect for the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamilnadu and the Minister of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department who are being the constitution functionaries. The petitioner has no role or inclination in political matters. The petitioner performs only religious duties in the temple. He never spoken about the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamilnadu and the Minister of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments or made derogatory or malicious remarks against them. However, he had no occasion to speak about the Chief Minister or another Minister.

5. That apart, there is absolutely no ingredients to attract the offence under Sections 294(b) of IPC . To attract the offence under Section 294(b) of , there must be an uttering of words to affect the person who lodged the complaint. In this regard it is relevant to extract the (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."

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, itcan not be said that the ingredients of the offence under (b) of are 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., wherein it has been 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 judgement 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. In so far as the offence under Section 505(1)(b) is concerned, it pertains to utterance which leads to the incitement of offences against the State or public tranquillity. Therefore, it does not deal with utterances if any made against the police functionaries or Ministries. Therefore, this provision is not applied in this case since there is absolutely no material to attract the offence under (i) (b) of IPC . Therefore, the impugned FIR in this case is nothing but malicious prosecution and it cannot be sustained to proceed and liable to be quashed.

8. Accordingly, FIR registered in Cr.No.668 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed as against