Criminal proceedings can be quashed under S.482 CrPC if the FIR fails to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences or is instituted with malafide intent, rendering the prosecution an abuse of the process of law.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.261 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners threatened the defacto complainant and quarrelled with her using unparliamentary words in order to prevent the construction of her house.

4. A perusal of the records and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side reveals that a counter case was lodged as against the second respondent in Crime No.260 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent by the first petitioner herein. However, the said FIR was quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.13753 of 2023 dated 07.04.2025. Neverthless, the complaint lodged by the second respondent is still pending for investigation. The first and second petitioners are husband and wife and the third petitioner is co-brother of the first petitioner/first accused. The first and second petitioners are teachers by prefession. There is a dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent and that they have been frequently quarrelling with each other and lodging complaints against one another.

5. While being so, on 19.02.2023, when the second respondent was proceeding with the construction work along with the labourers, the petitioners abused them in filthy language and attempted to prevent them from carrying out the construction work. On the complaint lodged by the first petitioner, the first respondent also registered another FIR in Crime No.260 of 2023. However, the said FIR was quashed by this Court on the ground that no offence was made out.

6. Further, in order to attract the offences under Sections 294(b) and

506(i) of IPC is concerned, 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 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 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.

8. Insofar as the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C is concerned, to attract the offence, threat and intention t