Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3387 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 25.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3387 of 2022

and

Crl.M.P(MD)No.2515 of 2022

Balu

... Petitioner/Sole Accused

Vs.

1.State represented by,

The Inspector of Police,

Sivagiri Police Station,

Tenkasi District.

(In Crime No.349 of 2021).

... 1^st Respondent/Complainant

2.M.Valli

... 2^nd Respondent/

Defacto complainant

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

to call for the records in FIR in Crime No.349 of 2021 on the file

of the first respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner

: Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran

For R – 1

: Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

For R – 2

: No appearance

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR

in Crime No.349 of 2021 registered for the offences under Sections

294(b), 323 and 506(i) of I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 20.07.2021, the second

respondent lodged a complaint alleging that her sons said to have

been abused by the petitioner and he assaulted them with hands and

the same was informed to her by their sons.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the

first respondent.

4.Though the name of the second respondent has been printed in

the cause-list, none appeared on behalf of the second respondent

either in person or through counsel.

1/4

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3387 of 2022

5.On a perusal of the impugned F.I.R revealed that all the

allegations are simple and trivial in nature. Further, where the

allegations made in the F.I.R or the complaint, even if they are

taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not

prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the

petitioner. To attract the provision under Section 294(b) of I.P.C.,

the essential ingredient is an obscene act must have been done in a

public place or the act or song or ballad or words were obscene and

the acts were done by the accused causing annoyance to others. Here

in this case, where the alleged occurrence taken place had not

caused annoyance to others. In this regard, it is relevant to

extract the provision under Section 294(b) of IPC, which reads as

under:

"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, Section 294(b) of I.P.C is not attracted as against the

petitioner.

6.It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court

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

the allegations are frivolous in nature and the petitioner need not

go for ordeal of trial.

7.Insofar as the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C is

concerned, to attract the offence, threat and intention to cause an

alarm are main ingredients. The third ingredient is that the

intention must be to cause any person to do any act which he is not

legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is

legally entitled to do, subsequent to the main ingredients. Whereas

in the case on hand, even according to the case of the prosecution,

the alleged threats issued by the petitioner were only empty threats

and they had no effect on the complainant