The delay in lodging an FIR and vague allegations are insufficient to sustain prosecution under the IPC and relevant state acts.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the final report in C.C.No.557 of 2022 filed for the offences under Section 294 (b), 506(1) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 .

2. The allegation in the impugned final report is that on 22.11.2018, the first petitioner/A1 had called the defacto complainant over phone and posing herself as the Director General of Police, she asked the defacto complainant to transfer her property to one Logadharsini, failing which, she would foist a false case against the defacto complainant under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act; that when the defacto complainant enquired about the said incident to the second petitioner/A2, who is the father of the said Logadarsini, he had abused the defacto complainant in filthy language in a public place.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations even if taken at its face value would not attract the offences alleged; that the complaint was lodged four months after the occurrence; that the first respondent, without proper investigation, had filed the impugned final report in a hurried manner without collecting any evidence as to whether the first petitioner had called the defacto complainant over phone; that there was no allegation as against the second petitioner in the FIR and without any basis, he has been included as an accused; that the second petitioner had filed a civil suit against the second respondent for various reliefs; and that a civil dispute is sought to be converted into a criminal case.

4. Though notice has been served on the second respondent and her name is printed in the cause list, none has entered appearance.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor per contra submitted that the delay in lodging of FIR alone would not be a ground for quashing of the final report; that the first respondent after investigation had filed the final report; and that the truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be gone into in this quash petition.

6. The alleged occurrence of the first petitioner making a phone call to the defacto complainant is said to have taken place on 22.11.2018. The prosecution had cited 9 witnesses, out of which, the first witness is the defacto complainant; witnesses 2, 3 and 4 are hearsay witnesses; witnesses 5 and 6 are observation mahazar witnesses and the remaining 3 witnesses are the Investigating Officers. The prosecution has not chosen to collect the call records to establish the phone call made by the first petitioner. In any case, the allegation against the first petitioner is vague and does not attract the offence under Section 294 (b) IPC . In order to attract the offence under (b) , the accused must have committed an obscene act or uttered obscene words. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.S.Madhanagopal and Another Vs. K.Lalitha reported in(2022) 17 SCC 818 has held as follows:

''8. It has to be noted that in the instant case, the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 294 (b). None of the records disclose the alleged words used by the accused. It may not be the requirement of law to reproduce in all cases the entire obscene words if it is lengthy, but in the instant case, there is hardly anything on record. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under (b) IPC .

9.To prove the offence under Section 294 IPC mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof of establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case. No one has spoken about the obscene words, th