High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.14056 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 04.04.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.14056 of 2023andCrl.M.P.No.8679 of 20231. Shankar Reddy2. Jayanthi3. Narayana Reddy ... PetitionersVs1. The State, Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bagalur Police Station, Krishnagiri District. Crime No.83 of 2023.2. Uma ... Respondents Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to allow this Criminal Original Petition and call for the records in connection with Crime No.83 of 2023 on the file of Bagalur Police Station, Krishnagiri District, and quash the same.1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14056 of 2023For Petitioners: Mr.K.Srinivasan Senior Counsel for M/s.V.MythiliFor Respondents: Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) (for R1)O R D E RThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.83 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 294(b) and 506(2) of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution is that the father of the second respondent/defacto complainant one Narasimha Reddy has executed a will in favour of her bequeathing his self-acquired properties consisting of Survey Nos.180/2, 180/3, 180/4 and 179/5 to an extent of 5.75 acres and that she has been doing agriculture in the above said lands and she has leased a portion of the said property consisting of Mango trees to one Bairose of Karnataka and the agricultural portion has been leased out to Ramamurthy and Muniraj of her village and that they have installed a borewell motor to irrigate the above said lands and she used to visit her lands once a week. There have been land disputes in respect of the 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14056 of 2023abovesaid properties between the second respondent and her sister Jayanthi (the second petitioner herein), her sister's husband Shankar Reddy (the first petitioner herein) and her brother Naryana Reddy (the third petitioner herein) and due to which they have previous enmity with her. The abovesaid Ramamurthy and Muniraj allegedly informed the second respondent that when they went to check up their land on 30.03.2023 at around 5.00 a.m., the petitioners damaged the borewell motor panel installed near the Mango trees and changed the electric current connection and burnt down the coil. When the second respondent and her husband confronted the petitioners, the petitioners alleged to have uttered bad words and told her that the lands belonged to them and threatened to kill her using stones and the problem was not resolved even after discussing with family and hence, the second respondent gave complaint to the first respondent police on 09.04.2023 and FIR was registered for the abovesaid offences on the same date at 18.00 hrs.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14056 of 20234. It is seen that there is a dispute between the family members in respect of their ancestral properties. The allegations are trivial in nature. That apart, already a partition suit was filed by the family members in O.S.No.116 of 2015, and the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the Appeal Suit is pending in A.S.No.65 of 2021 before the learned Additional Judge, Hosur. Therefore, there are no ingredients to make out a case for the offences under Section 447 of IPC, since all the parties are joint owners of the properties.5. 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."4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14056 of 2023Admittedly, 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 made out. 6. 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 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 petitioners. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14056 of 2023 7. Insofar as the offence under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C is concerned, threat should be a real one and not just a mere words when the person uttering does not exactly mean what he says and also when the person to whom 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. Therefore, this Court finds that the entire proceedings initiated as against the petitioners under Sections 447, 427, 294(b) and 506(2) of IPC, cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the First Information Report in Crime No.83 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 04.04.2025Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation/Yes/Nokv6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14056 of 2023To1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bagalur Police Station, Krishnagiri District.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14056 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.kvCrl.O.P.No.14056 of 202304.04.20258/8