IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P.Nos.13284 & 13285 of 2023 Z.M.Ali Bhai S/o Zoyeb Bhai, No.174, Cee Bros, Tower No.4, No.3.2, Mrc Nagar, Pattinampakkam, Chennai

600028 ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. Inspector Of Police J3 Guindy Police Station, Chennai

2. Shabbir Jamnagarwala S/o Yousuf Jamnagarwala, 8th Floor, No.86, Polyhose Towers, Mount Road, Chennai

600032 ..Respondent(s)

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to Call for the records pertaining to the proceedings pending in CC.1139/2023 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and Quash the Same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Anil Kumar for Ms.P.S.Deepika For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R1 Mr.N.Bhuvaneswaran, For R2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.1139 of 2023 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a partition suit among the family members which was filed before this Court in C.S.No.222 of 2007, by the father – in – law of the petitioner herein, who has been arrayed as Accused No.2 in C.C.No.1139 of 2023 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. M/s. Polyhose India Pvt. Ltd., represented by the second respondent, had filed a suit for specific performance in C.S.No.121 of 2009 before this Court. This Court, vide a common judgment, dated 18.11.2019 dismissed the suit in C.S.No.121 of 2009 observing that the suit was filed as a counter blast for the partition suit and decreed C.S.No.222 of 2007 entitling the Accused No.2 along with other Plaintiffs to 1/3rd of the share in the properties. Against the said order, the second respondent had filed an appeal in O.S.A.No.166 of 2021 wherein an interim order has been granted against the second accused. As a counter blast, a false complaint was lodged to give criminal colour to a civil dispute. On 15.06.2022, the second respondent preferred a complaint to J-3, Guindy Police Station, Chennai. Based on the complaint, the first respondent police registered a FIR on 21.06.2022 bearing No.403/2022 for offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC. The respondent police had filed its charge sheet in C.C.No.1139/2023, on the file IX Metropolitan Magistate, Saidapet, Chennai for the alleged offences under Section 294(b), 506(i) IPC.

3. On perusal of the entire case and the submissions, I find there is no allegations to make out a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. There is no basic ingredients of the offences under Section 294(b), 506(i) IPC in the present case as alleged by the prosecution.

4. 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, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both."

5. Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioner as such to constitute the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there is no averments and allegations. Further, the charges do not show that on hearing the obscene words, which were allegedly uttered by the petitioner, the witnesses felt annoyed. 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 petitioner annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in 1996(1) CTC 470 in the cas