BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 07/10/2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.5790 and 5791 of 2024 Michael @ Rajith, ... Petitioner / A4 Vs

1. The Inspector of Police, Rajakkamangalam Police Station, Kanyakumari District..

2. Leyonard Vasanth, S/o.Soosai Mariyan, ... Respondents PRAYER :- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet C.C.No.448 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Nagercoil and Quash the same as against the petitioner .

For Petitioner : Mr.Karuppasamy Pandiyan.G, For R1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner seeks to quash C.C.No.448 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Nagercoil for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC.

2. It is alleged in the final report that on account of a prior enmity, the petitioner, who was arrayed as A4, along with three others, on 26.12.2019 at about 6.00 a.m., abused the defacto complainant and threatened him of dire consequences and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations in the final report are contrary to the FIR lodged by the second respondent; that the second respondent had stated in the FIR that A1 committed the offence of criminal intimidation at the instigation of A2 to A4.

4. The learned counsel would submit that the allegations are false;

that even if the allegations are accepted to be true, the offences alleged are not made out and prayed for quashing of the impugned proceedings.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the points raised by the petitioner have to be adjudicated only before the trial Court and cannot be decided in a quash petition and therefore, he has sought for dismissal of the quash petition.

6. Though the learned counsel has entered appearance for the second respondent, there is no representation on 10.09.2025 or even today.

7. It is seen from the FIR, which culminated in the filing of the final report that the allegations with regard to the threat and criminal intimidation have been made as against A1, who is stated to be a client of the defacto complainant, a practicing lawyer. Further, the FIR states that A1 committed the said offence, at the instigation of A2 to A4. The petitioner is arrayed as A4. In the impugned final report, the prosecution states that all the accused had abused the defacto complainant and also criminally intimated him. The allegation against the petitioner appears to be an afterthought.

8. Be that as it may, even if we accept the allegations in the final report as true, the question in the instant quash petition is whether the offences under Section 294(b) and 506(i) IPC are made out. 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 Section 294(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, they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the appellants-accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the