High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.5973 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 03.03.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.5973 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.3821 of 2025Ezhilarasan @ Ezhil....PetitionerVsState Represented byThe Inspector of Police,E-3, Minjur Police Station,Minjur, Thiruvallur District.(Crime No.450 of 2018)....Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2025, to recall for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.450 of 2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, E-3, Minjur Police Station, Minjur, Thiruvallur District in respect of the petitioner herein is concerned and to quash the same.For Petitioner: Mr.M.Nagoor MoideenFor Respondent: Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5973 of 2025 ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.450 of 2018 on the file of the respondent, registered for the offences under Sections 379, 430, 294(b), 353 and 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioner.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.3. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.08.2018, at about 7.00 a.m, the respondent was on patrol, when a sound was heard from the truck, which was found to be filled with lake sand. Subsequently, the respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No.450 of 2018 as against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offences under Sections 379, 430, 294(b) , 353 and 506(i) of IPC. That apart, the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence and was studying at the time of alleged occurrence. Further, there is no witness to the occurrence. It shows that the FIR was registered as against the petitioner out of personal vengeance.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5973 of 20254. A perusal of the revenue records reveals that there is no lake at the alleged scene of occurrence and there is no river. It is only a lotus pond. Further, even as per the FIR, there were no obstructions for the petitioner to attract the offence under Section 353 of IPC.5. In order to attract the offence 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."6. 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 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5973 of 2025that 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 can not be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out. 7. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 238 in the case of Om Prakash Ambedkar Vs. State of Maharastra and ors, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the test of obscenity under Section 294(b) of IPC is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those, whose minds are open to such immoral influences. This Court finds that the words uttered in this case have such a tendency. The words are defamatory about the complainant but this Court doesn't think that the words are obscene and the utterance would constitute an offence punishable under Section 294(b) of IPC. Further it has to be noted in the present case in the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC. Mere 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5973 of 2025abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) of IPC. Therefore, there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case. 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 accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out. Therefore, no case is made out as against the petitioner to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC. 8. In order to attract the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C 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 was only empty threats and he had no effect on the complainant. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5973 of 20259. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014 in the case of Abdul Agis Vs. State through the Inspector of Police, which reads as follows:-“?7. It is seen from the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. of the second respondent/ defacto complainant that it does not contain any obscene words, which were uttered by the petitioner herein and the entire allegations are very simple in nature. It is also seen from the statement of one Uthami, that the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences when he dashed the defacto complainant. The entire allegations are trivial in nature. Further, to attract the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C., there was a threatening only by words. As pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the petition uttering does not exactly mean what he says and also when the person to whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. Therefore, the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. are not made out as against the petitioner herein and also the entire criminal proceedings is clear an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the entire proceedings.?”10. In view of the above, the FIR in Crime No.450 of 2018 cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. The FIR was registered 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5973 of 2025in the year 2018 and for the past 7 years, no investigation has been conducted and the FIR has been kept pending. In order to ends of justice, the FIR in Crime No.450 of 2018 is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.03.03.2025LppIndex:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/No To1. The Inspector of Police,E-3, Minjur Police Station,Minjur, Thiruvallur District.2. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5973 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.Lpp Crl.O.P.No.5973 of 202503.03.20258/8

Crl.O.P.No.5973 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 03.03.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.5973 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.3821 of 2025Ezhilarasan @ Ezhil....PetitionerVsState Represented byThe Inspector of Police,E-3, Minjur Police Station,Minjur, Thiruvallur District.(Crime No.450 of 2018)....Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2025, to recall for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.450 of 2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, E-3, Minjur Police Station, Minjur, Thiruvallur District in respect of the petitioner herein is concerned and to quash the same.For Petitioner: Mr.M.Nagoor MoideenFor Respondent: Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5973 of 2025 ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.450 of 2018 on the file of the respondent, registered for the offences under Sections 379, 430, 294(b), 353 and 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioner.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.3. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.08.2018, at about 7.00 a.m, the respondent was on patrol, when a sound was heard from the truck, which was found to be filled with lake sand. Subsequently, the respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No.450 of 2018 as against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offences under Sections 379, 430, 294(b) , 353 and 506(i) of IPC. That apart, the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence and was studying at the time of alleged occurrence. Further, there is no witness to the occurrence. It shows that the FIR was registered as against the petitioner out of personal vengeance.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5973 of 20254. A perusal of the revenue records reveals that there is no lake at the alleged scene of occurrence and there is no river. It is only a lotus pond. Further, even as per the FIR, there were no obstructions for the petitioner to attract the offence under Section 353 of IPC.5. In order to attract the offence 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."6. 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 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5973 of 2025that 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 can not be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out. 7. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 238 in the case of Om Prakash Ambedkar Vs. State of Maharastra and ors, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the test of obscenity under Section 294(b) of IPC is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those, whose minds are open to such immoral influences. This Court finds that the words uttered in this case have such a tendency. The words are defamatory about the complainant but this Court doesn't think that the words are obscene and the utterance would constitute an offence punishable under Section 294(b) of IPC. Further it has to be noted in the present case in the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC. Mere 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5973 of 2025abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) of IPC. Therefore, there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case. 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 accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out. Therefore, no case is made out as against the petitioner to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC. 8. In order to attract the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C 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 was only empty threats and he had no effect on the complainant. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5973 of 20259. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014 in the case of Abdul Agis Vs. State through the Inspector of Police, which reads as follows:-“?7. It is seen from the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. of the second respondent/ defacto complainant that it does not contain any obscene words, which were uttered by the petitioner herein and the entire allegations are very simple in nature. It is also seen from the statement of one Uthami, that the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences when he dashed the defacto complainant. The entire allegations are trivial in nature. Further, to attract the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C., there was a threatening only by words. As pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the petition uttering does not exactly mean what he says and also when the person to whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. Therefore, the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. are not made out as against the petitioner herein and also the entire criminal proceedings is clear an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the entire proceedings.?”10. In view of the above, the FIR in Crime No.450 of 2018 cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. The FIR was registered 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5973 of 2025in the year 2018 and for the past 7 years, no investigation has been conducted and the FIR has been kept pending. In order to ends of justice, the FIR in Crime No.450 of 2018 is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.03.03.2025LppIndex:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/No To1. The Inspector of Police,E-3, Minjur Police Station,Minjur, Thiruvallur District.2. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5973 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.Lpp Crl.O.P.No.5973 of 202503.03.20258/8