Criminal proceedings should be quashed under inherent jurisdiction when the materials fail to disclose essential ingredients of the alleged offences, such as public annoyance for Section 294(b), actual physical obstruction for Section 341, or objective medical evidence for Section 323 IPC.

ORDER

Preface:

The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is intended to prevent abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. This extraordinary power is not to be exercised routinely, but only where the uncontroverted allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence or where the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides.

2. The present Criminal Original Petition calls in question the continuation of criminal proceedings in C.C.No.07 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri, wherein the petitioners stand charged for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.

Case of the prosecution:

3. The case of the prosecution, as borne out from the First Information Report, the final report, and the accompanying materials, is that on 07.06.2020 at about 10.00 a.m., the petitioners/accused allegedly waylaid the de facto complainant while he was proceeding to his aunt’s house. It is alleged that the accused persons restrained the de facto complainant stating that he could not enter the said street, abused him in filthy language, slapped him with hands, and threatened him with dire consequences. On the basis of the said allegations, a complaint came to be lodged.

4. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.179 of 2020 dated 07.06.2020 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. Upon completion of investigation, the offence under Section 307 IPC was dropped, and a final report was filed against the petitioners alone for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC, which was taken on file as C.C.No.07 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri.

Grounds for quash:

5. Assailing the impugned proceedings, the petitioners have raised the following grounds, among others:

(a) The complaint is false, motivated, and has been lodged during the Covid-19 lockdown period, when movement itself was restricted, and the de facto complainant was not even a resident of the locality.

(b) The dispute is purely neighbourly in nature between the petitioners and the aunt of the de facto complainant, who is alleged to be an influential person in the locality, and the criminal law has been set in motion only to harass the petitioners.

(c) Even the final report vaguely states that the reason for the dispute is “not known”, which itself demonstrates the arbitrary and mechanical nature of the investigation.

(d) The petitioners’ counter-complaint against the aunt of the de facto complainant and her family members was neither registered nor enquired into, revealing a clear bias on the part of the respondent police.

(e) The essential ingredients of Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC are conspicuously absent from the materials collected during investigation, rendering the prosecution legally untenable.

Submissions:

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire prosecution case is founded on vague allegations such as “Vnjh fhuzj;jhy; Kd; tpnuhjk; bfhz;L”, without any specific motive or overt act attributable to the petitioners. With regard to Section 294(b) IPC, it was contended that mere utterance of alleged obscene words is insufficient, unless it is shown that such utterance caused annoyance to others and occurred in a public place or in the vicinity thereo