High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No. 3787 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.3787 of 2025 andCrl.M.P.No.2484 of 20251.Nirmala2.Gayathiri... PetitionersVs.1.State by Inspector of Police,Baluchettychatram Police StationKancheepuram District.(Crime No.72 of 2024)2.Sivanandham ..RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and quash the FIR in Crime No.72 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Saravana KumarFor R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (crl.side)For R2 : Mr.M.R.ThangavelPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 3787 of 2025O R D E RThis petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.72 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 294(b) of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.02.2024, the petitioners allegedly trespassed into the agricultural land of the second respondent and caused damage to his paddy field. When the second respondent questioned the petitioners regarding the incident, they reportedly used filthy language and scolded him. As a result, the second respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners, leading to the registration of the FIR in Crime No.72 of 2024 under Sections 447, 427, and 294(b) of the IPC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the second respondent is the brother of the first petitioner's late husband, which indicates a familial dispute. He would further submit that there is Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 3787 of 2025an ongoing property dispute between the first petitioner and the second respondent. Following the demise of the first petitioner's husband, the second respondent has refused to give the rightful share to the first petitioner's family, thereby leading to a property-related dispute. That apart, a release deed has already been executed by the second respondent concerning the subject property. Further, the petitioner points out that the second respondent has filed a civil suit for injunction in O.S.No.93 of 2023 before the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, which is still pending. Similarly, the petitioners have filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.45 of 2024, which is also pending before the same court. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no specific allegations or materials to substantiate the offences under Sections 447, 427, and 294(b) of the IPC against the petitioners, and as such, the FIR in question is unwarranted.4. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent, submits that the FIR has been registered based on the complaint of the second respondent, alleging trespassing, Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 3787 of 2025causing damage to the paddy field and using offensive language. The allegations made by the second respondent, even though arising from a property dispute, warrant investigation. 5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.6. On perusal of records, it is evident that the second respondent is the brother of the first petitioner's deceased husband and there is a property dispute between the first petitioner and the second respondent. It has been brought to the attention of this Court that there are ongoing civil suits pending before the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, in respect of the same subject matter. The petitioner has produced evidence indicating that a release deed was executed by the second respondent concerning the property in question. The allegations of trespassing, causing damage, and using filthy language, as made in the FIR, appear to be vague and unsubstantiated in light of the ongoing civil proceedings between the parties.Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 3787 of 20257. 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." 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 words, they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the petitioners annoyed others, it can not be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 3787 of 2025made out. 9. 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 of others, which is lacking in the case." The above judgment 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 10. In view of the fact that the dispute is primarily of a civil nature, and no specific allegations are made that would attract the offences under Sections 447, 427, and 294(b) of the IPC, this Court is of the opinion that the FIR in Crime No.72 of 2024 cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.72 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed as against the petitioners and the Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 3787 of 2025Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.24.03.2025Neutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking ordershkTo1.The Inspector of Police, Baluchettychatram Police Station Kancheepuram District.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 3787 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.shkCrl.O.P.No.3787 of 2025 andCrl.M.P.No.2484 of 202524.03.2025Page 8 of 8