IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.03.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.5566 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.4061 of 2024 Krishnakumar ... Petitioner Versus

1.The State Rep.by, The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Arumbakkam Range, Chennai.

2.The Inspector of Police, K-8, Arumbakkam Police Station, Chennai. (Crime No.287 of 2023)

3.Mr. Sasidharan ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in Crime No.287 of 2023 on 14.12.2023 pending on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr. K. Karthik For Respondents : Mr. R. Vinothraja, (for R1)

Government Advocate (Criminal side)

: Mr. N. Vijayaraj, (for R2)

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in the First Information Report in Crime No.287 of 2023 pending on the file of the second respondent.

2. On the complaint lodged by the third respondent, the second respondent registered a First Information Report in Crime No.287 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 448, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC, r/w Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), SC/ST(PoA), Act, 1989, alleging that the third respondent had given a sum of Rs.13,77,138/- to the petitioner for renovation of a flat situated at N-21, 3^rd Floor, Arumbakkam, Chennai, in the month of March 2023. However, after receiving the said amount, the petitioner did not perform the renovation work properly. Therefore, the third respondent requested the petitioner to return the amount. During their conversation, the petitioner allegedly used filthy language and abused the third respondent by using his caste name.

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

4. Admittedly, there is a commercial transaction between the defacto complainant and the petitioner. The third respondent/defacto complainant entrusted the renovation work to the petitioner and provided money on a day-to-day basis. The daily work of the petitioner was done under surveillance of the defacto complainant/third respondent. Upon perusal of the records, it is evident that after the compelition of the renovation work, the defacto complainant calimed that the work done by the petitioner was not proper. Therefore, no offence is made out and no ingriedent in the complaint to attract Sections 448, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC.

5. Further, in order to attract the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and

3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, the occurrence must have taken place in a public place. According to the third respondent, the petitioner and others came to the house found him by using his caste name. Therefore, the offences under Sections 448, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC, r/w Sections 3(1)(r) and

3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, are not all made out as against the petitioner.

6. 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."

7. 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 i