Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 58256
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
M.Palanisamy – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.6537 of 2025 | C.C.No.53 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Manokaran
For the Respondents: Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Mere utterance of obscene words without evidence of annoyance does not establish a case under IPC Sections 294(b) and 506(i).
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294(b) and 506(i) - Allegations against the petitioner included demanding amount and using obscene words - Mere utterance of obscene words not enough; must show annoyance to others - Legal evidence of annoyance was lacking - Court found allegations to be an abuse of process. (Paras 5, 6, 7 and 8)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of proceedings - The court held there was insufficient evidence to sustain charges against the petitioner. The proceedings were quashed as an abuse of legal process.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of verbally threatening the complainant after a dispute over borrowed money. Witness testimony was inadequate.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that there was no legal evidence showing that the petitioner’s alleged verbal abuse caused annoyance, and the allegations motivated by other reasons were dismissed.
Issues: Whether mere abusive words are sufficient to sustain an offence under IPC Sections 294 and 506, and if sufficient evidence showed real threat to life.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that absent evidence of annoyance, and in light of motives behind the complaint, the charges were unfounded.
Result: Criminal petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims of abuse arise from financial conflicts. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. counsel contests the validity of allegations. (Para 4) |
| 3. legal standards require specific evidence for prosecution. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. vague allegations cannot substantiate criminal charges. (Para 7) |
| 5. court quashes proceedings due to lack of evidence. (Para 8) |
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Crl.O.P. No.6537 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.4187 of 2025 M.Palanisamy ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Moolanur Police Station, Tiruppur District.
(Crime No.108 of 2024)
2. Selvajothi ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in C.C.No.53 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram and quash the same.
For petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor – R1 No appearance – R2
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and quash C.C.No.53 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram.
2. The Final Report has been filed against the petitioner by the Respondent Police before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram in C.C.No.108 of 2024 under Sections 294 (b) and 506 (i) I.P.C. to the effect that the petitioner / accused demanded amount from the Defacto complainant's son one Sai Nithishkumar who was working under Accused firm since he has left the job and swindled certain amount thereby, he abused the defacto complainant and her husband using obscene words.
Further oral threat also made.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the Prosecution. In fact, the petitioner is a farmer and the defacto complainant borrowed some amount and to wriggle out the liability to repay the amount, a false complaint came to be filed against him. Except the complaint of the defacto complainant and her husband, all other witnesses are only hearsay witnesses.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.
5. It is well settled that mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient to prove the offence under Section 294 IPC . There must be further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others. In this case, no one has clearly spoken about the obscene words. On perusal of the complaint, it shows that the Defacto complainant's son was working in the firm run by the Accused and after leaving the firm, the complaint came to be filed. In fact, it is clearly indicated that the complaint has motive for some other reasons.
6. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2025) 1 MLJ (Crl) 357 (SC) in Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. wherein it has been held as follows:
14....
9. To prove the offence under Section 294 IPC mere utterance of obscene 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. 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 appellant- accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under (b) is made out."
15. We fail to understand how the act of a police officer assaulting the complainant within public view or public as alleged would amount to an obscene act. Obscene act for the purpose of Section 294 has a particular meaning. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamatory words by themselves are not sufficient to attract the offence under of the IPC .
7. Further this Court in the Order dated 24.06.2022 in Crl.O.P.No.13128 of 2022 , has held as follows:
7. ....the entire allegations with regard to threat and abusive language, there is no statements made by the witnesses as
