Quashed proceedings for lack of ingredients in Ss.294(b), 506(i), 323 IPC due to trivial cross-allegations and no proof of annoyance, real threat, or hurt.

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.326 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thiruvallur, thereby taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, as against the petitioner. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.09.2020 at about 7 p.m., when the second respondent was in her house, the petitioner, his brother and other accused persons abused the second respondent by asking about her husband. When it was questioned by the second respondent, the accused persons attempted to assaulted her by hands. Further alleged that on the next day on 25.09.2020 about about 10 am., when the second respondent and her husband were waiting near the police station, the petitioner and others abused her and also assaulted her husband. On the complaint, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.2090 of 2020 and after completion of investigation, they filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in C.C.No.326 of 2022. To quash the said proceedings, the petitioner filed the present petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

4. On perusal of the records, it is revealed that for the very same occurrence, the petitioner lodged complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.2089 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 341, 147, 148 & 506(Part II) of IPC., as against the second respondent and others. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.327 of 2022 and it is also pending for trial on the very same Trial Court. The entire complaint itself is false and all the allegations are trivial in nature. Even according to the case of the prosecution both the parties were abused and assaulted each other.

5. To attract the offence 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."

Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioners 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 petitioners, 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 petitioners annoyed others, it can not be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section

294(b) of IPC is made out.

6. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in 1996(1) CTC

470 in the case of K.Jeyaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj & anr., which held as follows :-

"To prove the offence under Section 294 of IPC mere utterance of obscence 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."

The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case and therefore, the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not at all attracted as against the petitioners.

7. Insofar as the offence under Sec