Criminal proceedings can be quashed u/s 482 CrPC if manifestly mala fide or malicious, especially where obscene words or threats lack required ingredients for offence.

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in FIR No. 347 of 2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar Police Sation, Chengalpattu / 1st Respondent herein and quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. D.Padmanabhan For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gopinath for R1 Government Advocate [Crl.side]

No appearance for R2

ORDER

This Criminal Original petition has been filed to call for the records in FIR No. 347 of 2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar Police Sation, Chengalpattu / 1st Respondent herein and quash the same.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the 1^st respondent and perused the documents placed on record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity between the family of the defacto complainant and the family of the petitioner, on 21.06.2018, the defacto complainant and his men gathered in front of the petitioner’s house, abused him with filthy language, thereby the 2^nd petitioner caused cut injury on the defacto complainant’s hand and the 3^rd petitioner caused cut injury to the defacto complainant’s son cheek and another one person, namely, Thirunavakarsu attacked the defacto complaint cousin’s son with wooden log and the 1^st petitioner attacked the defacto complainant’s brother, thereby FIR in Crime No.347 of 2018 was registered for offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 506 (ii) IPC.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, no cognizance can be taken by the trial court, since it is barred by limitation and even today, the 1^st respondent has not filed any charge sheet. Further, for the very same occurrence, counter complaint was also lodged by the petitioner in Crime No.346 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324 and 506 (ii) IPC.

5. It is relevant to note that the maximum punishment for the alleged offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is, for a period of three months, or with fine or with both. Further, the maximum punishment for offence under Section 323 IPC is, for a period of one year, or with fine, which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or with both. That apart, the maximum punishment for offence under Section 506(ii) IPC is, for a period of two years, or with fine or both, which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or both 7 years or fine or both.

6. 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."

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

"To prove the offence under Section

294