Absence of sufficient evidence to support charges under IPC sections established grounds for quashing the FIR, indicating potential abuse of legal process.

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.60 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent police, for the offences under Sections 296 (b) and 506(i) of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent. Perused the materials available on record.

3. The second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner had sent a voice message, in which, he abused the second respondent using filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case was registered.

4. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.60 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC. Even according to the second respondent, the petitioner had allegedly sent a voice message containing abusive language. However, it is not ascertainable at this stage as to who sent the said voice message, as it appears to be in a different voice. That apart, the allegations are civil in nature and the offence alleged under Section 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC do not warrant continuation of the criminal proceedings.

5. To attract the offences 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 were 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. 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.

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, subsequent to the main ingredients. Whereas in the case on hand, even according to the case of the prosecution, the alleged threats issued by the petitioner were only empty threats and they had no effect on the complainant.

8. In this regard, It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014 in the case of Abdul Agis Vs. State through the Inspector