IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.03.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.8213 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.5368 of 2025 Vignesh ... Petitioner vs.

1. State rep.by The Inspector of Police, H-05 Police Station, New Washermenpet, Chennai 600 081.

2. Manikandan .. Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to call for the records and to quash the FIR in Crime No.1059 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr. V.Sambamurthy For R1 : Mr.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to call for the records and to quash the F.I.R.

in Crime No.1059 of 2024 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 296(b), 118(i), 132, 351(3)(b) BNS, as against the petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.09.2024 at about 5.15 p.m., the petitioner was on the way to his mother-in-laws house in Kaladipet by Scooter along with his wife and 10 month old baby. His wife and his child were pillion riders. He was driving the scooter very slowly with great care and caution towards traffic rules. He was driving to the left hand side of the road in slow speed considering the fact that the wife was sitting with the child at the back side of the scooter. At that time, the Madras transport bus bearing No.56D come rashly behind the scooter almost dashing the scooter. The petitioner and his wife got frightened and the wife was about to fall down with child. The petitioner immediately stop the scooter in order to save the wife and the child and questioned the driver “ you do not know how to drive? Why are you driving the bus so rashly without considering the public? and never considered that he was driving the two wheeler with knife and child and further questioning who gave the driving license to drive the bus in such a way.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and stated that there was absolutey no base for the petitioner's arrest and remand. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police is yet to file final report.

5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

6. On perusal of the complaint, allegations levelled against the petitioner under Sections 296(b) an 118(1), 132, 351(3)(b) of BNS. There was no injury sustained by the second respondent. The entire incident is also rival in nature and keeping the FIR pending, no purpose would be served. Further, where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and do noit make out a case against the accused .

7. In order to attract the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS, 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 296(b) of BNS, as follows :-

"296. 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 which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."

8. Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioners as such to constitute the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS, 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