High Court · 2025
Case Details
Crl.O.P.No.5370 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 27.03.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.5370 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.3482 of 2025Ramya K. ... PetitionerVs1. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Ariankuppam Police Station, Puducherry. (Cr.No.62/2024)2. Anitha ... RespondentsCriminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., to call for the records in Cr.No.62/2024 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr.M.ShreedharFor Respondents: Mr.M.V.Ramachandramurthy, Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) (for R1) Mr.G.Ezhil Balaji (for R2)1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5370 of 2025O R D E RThis petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.62 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent.2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/de facto complainant is running a canteen at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Kirumampakkam, Puducherry, along with one Sharath Babu as a partner, and she had taken an office at Puducherry. While so, on 31.01.2024 at about 9:30 p.m., when the de facto complainant and her partner were perusing the canteen expenses, the door was pulled strongly in the name of delivery from the Zomato order, but neither of them had ordered for any food delivery, and when they opened the door, the petitioner/A1, who is the wife of the second respondent's partner, and her men and a lady entered their premises, and the lady accompanying the petitioner/A1 scolded the second respondent and also took photographs of the premises and her partner. The petitioner quarrelled with her husband and scolded the de facto complainant and removed her shawl and tried to attack her modesty. Thereafter, the person who accompanied the petitioner threatened the de 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5370 of 2025facto complainant that if she continued the partnership with the said Sarath Babu, they would kill her. Hence, the complaint.3. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record. 4. On a perusal of the records, it is revealed that the petitioner is none other than the wife of Krishnaraj, who had an illicit relationship with the second respondent. On the date of occurrence, viz., on 31.01.2024, in the house of the petitioner, the second respondent was there and also had an illicit relationship. Both were caught red-handed by the petitioner on 31.01.2024. They were also video-graphed in a compromising position. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a complaint against her husband and the second respondent herein. The said alleged occurrence had taken place on 31.01.2024. After the complaint lodged by the petitioner, in Crime No.1 of 2024, which culminated in trial in C.C.No.2363 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 509, and 506(ii) of IPC.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5370 of 20255. Thereafter, the second respondent lodged a private complaint and sought direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. On the direction issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Puducherry in Crl.M.P.No.1182 of 2024 by order dated 20.03.2024, the first respondent registered the First Information Report in Crime No.62 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 354, 442, 506(ii), and 34 of IPC. The petitioner also produced the video-graph before this Court.6. Admittedly, the place of occurrence is the house of the petitioner's husband and the petitioner's matrimonial home at Puducherry. Therefore, the offence under Section 442 of IPC is not at all attracted, and there is no question of trespass. Insofar as the offence under Section 354 of IPC is concerned, this complaint cannot be maintained against a woman.7. 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 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5370 of 2025obscene 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 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 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5370 of 2025of others, which is lacking in the case."The above judgement 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 petitioner. 9. Insofar as the offence under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C is concerned, threat should be a real one and not just mere words when the person uttering does not exactly mean what he says and also when the person to whom the threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. Whereas, in the case on hand, there is no averment to attract the offence under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C. 10. In view of the above, the First Information Report has been registered only to grudge vengeance against the petitioner, that too on the instigation of the petitioner's husband, since already there was a misunderstanding between them and the petitioner lodged a complaint against her husband. Hence, the present First Information Report is nothing but a malicious prosecution, and it cannot be sustained for further investigation.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5370 of 202511. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the First Information Report Crime No.62 of 2024 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.27.03.2025Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation/Yes/NokvTo1. The Inspector of Police, Ariankuppam Police Station, Puducherry.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5370 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.kvCrl.O.P.No.5370 of 202527.03.20258/8
Crl.O.P.No.5370 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 27.03.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.5370 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.3482 of 2025Ramya K. ... PetitionerVs1. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Ariankuppam Police Station, Puducherry. (Cr.No.62/2024)2. Anitha ... RespondentsCriminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., to call for the records in Cr.No.62/2024 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr.M.ShreedharFor Respondents: Mr.M.V.Ramachandramurthy, Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) (for R1) Mr.G.Ezhil Balaji (for R2)1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5370 of 2025O R D E RThis petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.62 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent.2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/de facto complainant is running a canteen at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Kirumampakkam, Puducherry, along with one Sharath Babu as a partner, and she had taken an office at Puducherry. While so, on 31.01.2024 at about 9:30 p.m., when the de facto complainant and her partner were perusing the canteen expenses, the door was pulled strongly in the name of delivery from the Zomato order, but neither of them had ordered for any food delivery, and when they opened the door, the petitioner/A1, who is the wife of the second respondent's partner, and her men and a lady entered their premises, and the lady accompanying the petitioner/A1 scolded the second respondent and also took photographs of the premises and her partner. The petitioner quarrelled with her husband and scolded the de facto complainant and removed her shawl and tried to attack her modesty. Thereafter, the person who accompanied the petitioner threatened the de 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5370 of 2025facto complainant that if she continued the partnership with the said Sarath Babu, they would kill her. Hence, the complaint.3. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record. 4. On a perusal of the records, it is revealed that the petitioner is none other than the wife of Krishnaraj, who had an illicit relationship with the second respondent. On the date of occurrence, viz., on 31.01.2024, in the house of the petitioner, the second respondent was there and also had an illicit relationship. Both were caught red-handed by the petitioner on 31.01.2024. They were also video-graphed in a compromising position. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a complaint against her husband and the second respondent herein. The said alleged occurrence had taken place on 31.01.2024. After the complaint lodged by the petitioner, in Crime No.1 of 2024, which culminated in trial in C.C.No.2363 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 509, and 506(ii) of IPC.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5370 of 20255. Thereafter, the second respondent lodged a private complaint and sought direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. On the direction issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Puducherry in Crl.M.P.No.1182 of 2024 by order dated 20.03.2024, the first respondent registered the First Information Report in Crime No.62 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 354, 442, 506(ii), and 34 of IPC. The petitioner also produced the video-graph before this Court.6. Admittedly, the place of occurrence is the house of the petitioner's husband and the petitioner's matrimonial home at Puducherry. Therefore, the offence under Section 442 of IPC is not at all attracted, and there is no question of trespass. Insofar as the offence under Section 354 of IPC is concerned, this complaint cannot be maintained against a woman.7. 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 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5370 of 2025obscene 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 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 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5370 of 2025of others, which is lacking in the case."The above judgement 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 petitioner. 9. Insofar as the offence under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C is concerned, threat should be a real one and not just mere words when the person uttering does not exactly mean what he says and also when the person to whom the threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. Whereas, in the case on hand, there is no averment to attract the offence under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C. 10. In view of the above, the First Information Report has been registered only to grudge vengeance against the petitioner, that too on the instigation of the petitioner's husband, since already there was a misunderstanding between them and the petitioner lodged a complaint against her husband. Hence, the present First Information Report is nothing but a malicious prosecution, and it cannot be sustained for further investigation.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5370 of 202511. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the First Information Report Crime No.62 of 2024 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.27.03.2025Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation/Yes/NokvTo1. The Inspector of Police, Ariankuppam Police Station, Puducherry.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5370 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.kvCrl.O.P.No.5370 of 202527.03.20258/8