Criminal proceedings initiated by an accused as a counterblast to civil or quasi-criminal litigation, lacking essential ingredients of the alleged penal offenses, constitute an abuse of process of law and are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.226 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. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.226 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(i) and 420 of IPC, alleging that the second respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 17.02.2022 from the first petitioner. After receipt of the said amount, the second respondent issued a post-dated cheque for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. When the said cheque was presented for collection by the first petitioner, the same was returned dishonoured with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. After causing a statutory notice, the first petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the second respondent and the same has been taken cognizance in S.T.C.No.452 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhachalam.

4. According to the second respondent, the said cheque was misused by the first petitioner for initiating proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is alleged that, while entering into a construction work, the second respondent handed over blank cheques and a promissory note, which were subsequently misused by the first petitioner. When the second respondent questioned the same, the accused abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences.

5. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.226 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(i) and 420 of IPC. Even according to the second respondent, he is facing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C.No.452 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhachalam. In such circumstances, the second respondent lodged the present complaint only after initiation of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

6. In fact, the second respondent failed to appear before the Trial Court, pursuant to which the Trial Court issued a Non-Bailable Warrant. After recalling the said warrant, the second respondent initiated the present complaint. Therefore, the impugned complaint is nothing but a clear abuse of process of law and an attempt to escape from the clutches of law. That apart, no offence is made out as alleged by the second respondent.

7. Further, in order 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."

8. 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