IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.03.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.5370 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.3482 of 2025 Ramya K. ... Petitioner Vs

1. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Ariankuppam Police Station, Puducherry.

(Cr.No.62/2024)

2. Anitha ... Respondents Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., to call for the records in Cr.No.62/2024 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Shreedhar For Respondents : Mr.M.V.Ramachandramurthy, Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)

(for R1)

Mr.G.Ezhil Balaji (for R2)

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.62 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/de facto complainant is running a canteen at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Kirumampakkam, Puducherry, along with one Sharath Babu as a partner, and she had taken an office at Puducherry. While so, on 31.01.2024 at about 9:30 p.m., when the de facto complainant and her partner were perusing the canteen expenses, the door was pulled strongly in the name of delivery from the Zomato order, but neither of them had ordered for any food delivery, and when they opened the door, the petitioner/A1, who is the wife of the second respondent's partner, and her men and a lady entered their premises, and the lady accompanying the petitioner/A1 scolded the second respondent and also took photographs of the premises and her partner. The petitioner quarrelled with her husband and scolded the de facto complainant and removed her shawl and tried to attack her modesty. Thereafter, the person who accompanied the petitioner threatened the de facto complainant that if she continued the partnership with the said Sarath Babu, they would kill her. Hence, the complaint.

3. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

4. On a perusal of the records, it is revealed that the petitioner is none other than the wife of Krishnaraj, who had an illicit relationship with the second respondent. On the date of occurrence, viz., on 31.01.2024, in the house of the petitioner, the second respondent was there and also had an illicit relationship. Both were caught red-handed by the petitioner on 31.01.2024. They were also video-graphed in a compromising position. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a complaint against her husband and the second respondent herein. The said alleged occurrence had taken place on 31.01.2024. After the complaint lodged by the petitioner, in Crime No.1 of 2024, which culminated in trial in C.C.No.2363 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 509, and 506(ii) of IPC.

5. Thereafter, the second respondent lodged a private complaint and sought direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. On the direction issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Puducherry in Crl.M.P.No.1182 of 2024 by order dated 20.03.2024, the first respondent registered the First Information Report in Crime No.62 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 354, 442, 506(ii), and 34 of IPC. The petitioner also produced the video-graph before this Court.

6. Admittedly, the place of occurrence is the house of the petitioner's husband and the petitioner's matrimonial home at Puducherry. Therefore, the offence under Section 442 of IPC is not at all attracted, and there is no question of trespass. Insofar as the offence under Section 354 of IPC is concerned, this complaint cannot be maintained against a woman.

7. 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, ba