Crl.O.P(MD)No.20127 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON: 04.02.2022

PRONOUNCED ON: 25.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

Crl.O.P(MD)No.20127 of 2021

and

Crl.M.P.(MD).No.11335 of 2021

Ramasamy ... Petitioner / Sole Accused

Vs

1.State represented by

the Inspector of Police,

Ponnamaravathi Police Station,

Pudukottai District.

(Crime No.39/2020)

2.S.Anand

... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure,

to call for the records pertaining to the impugned F.I.R in Crime

No.39 of 2020 dated 17.02.2020 on the file of the first respondent

Police and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner

: Mr.R.Srinivasan

For R1

: Mr.M.Sakthikumar

Government Advocate

For R2

: Mr.A.Arul Jenifer

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR

in Crime No.39 of 2020 registered on the file of the Ponnamaravathi

Police Station, Pudukkottai for the offences under Sections 294(b),

506(i) of IPC and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000.

2. The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) as well as the

learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would submit

that no case for quashing has been made out.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner who is

based in Malaysia had sent a highly offensive message over whatsapp

to the defacto complainant's mobile.

4. The only question is whether sending such text will attract

the offences mentioned in the FIR. Section 294(b) of IPC will be

attracted only if a person to annoyance of others sings, recites or

utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public

place. In this case, the petitioner is said to have sent an obscene

text to the defacto complainant over whatsapp. Since the offence

was not committed in or near any public place, Section 294(b) is not

attracted.

1/3

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

Crl.O.P(MD)No.20127 of 2021

5. Section 506(i) of IPC will be attracted, if a person is

criminally intimidated. The Hon'ble Madras High Court, in the

decision reported in 1989 Crl LJ 669 (Noble Mohandass Vs. State)

held as follows:-

“7. As far as the offence under Section 506(2) is

concerned, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner

contended that the threat was not a real one, that it was of the

kind of words which are currently and frequently used by people

when they are angry and that further the threat was not spoken

to by P.W.3 and P.W.4 who by that time had already come to the

scene of occurrence. It is, in fact, found from the records

that the threat would have been lashed out after P.Ws.3 and 4

came to the place and separated both the husband and wife.

Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 should have been corroborated

by the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 who were necessary witnesses

to the occurrence. Since they did not corroborate the testimony

of P.W.1 in this aspect, the offence cannot be held to be

proved. Further for being an offence under Section 506(2) which

is rather an important offence punishable with imprisonment

which may extend to seven years, the threat should be a real one

and not just a mere word when the person uttering it does not

exactly mean what he says and also when the person at whom

threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. In fact

P.W.1 when she filed the complaint to the police officer, did

not express any fear for her life nor asked for any protection.

Therefore, the offence under Section 506(2) is not made out.”

There must be threat in the real sense. Only if the complainant

felt intimidated, Section 506(i) of IPC would be attracted. The

defacto complainant is an SSI. Hence, the offence under Section 506

(i) of IPC is also not attracted.

6. Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 will be

attrac