High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.18718 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No. 18718 of 2023andCrl.M.P.Nos.12465 & 12468 of 20231.Sagaya Praveen2.Varghese3.Pushpa Latha4.Roseline @ Rosi5.Sudha6.Suji....PetitionersVs1. The State,rep by Inspector of Police,Shankar Nagar Police Station,Chennai District,Chennai -75(Crime No.86 of 2020)2. Mary Mercy....RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.32 of 2023 pending on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram, quash the sameFor Petitioners : Mr.R.SreerangenFor R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)For R2: No appearanceO R D E RPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18718 of 2023This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.32 of 2023 pending on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.03.2020 at about 8.20 a.m. the accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant by breaking open the door and attempted to remove household articles. When it was questioned by the defacto complainant, she was assaulted by the accused using hands and legs. As a result, the defacto complainant sustained injury. Hence, the complaint.3. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.86 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 326, 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. After completion of the investigation, the first respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.32 of 2023.4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18718 of 2023the first petitioner is the husband of the second respondent and other petitioners are family members. The petitioners owned a house in which the first petitioner and the second respondent were living after their marriage, which was solemnized on 22.01.2018. Right from the day one, they had wordy quarrels arose between the first petitioner and the second respondent, since the second respondent found false with other accused and she deserted. The first petitioner went to parents house. While being so, the second respondent foisted a false case as against the petitioners for the offences under Section 498(A), 294(b), 323, 313, 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.2 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai. The said FIR was quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.7012 of 2020 by an order dated 24.08.2022. Pursuant to the said complaint, the present complaint has been lodged on 20.03.2020. Even according to the said complaint on 20.03.2020, she was attacked by the accused persons and as such, she sustained injuries and admitted in the hospital on 20.03.2020 at about 10.15. a.m. She was discharged on 26.03.2020.5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.6. A perusal of the FIR registered in Crime No.86 of 2020 reveals Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18718 of 2023that the second respondent appeared before the first respondent police on 20.03.2020 at about 9.15 a.m and lodged a complaint. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent registered an FIR. That apart, the FIR does not even whisper about the injuries sustained by the second respondent or her admission to the hospital as in-patient. Therefore, the medical records have been fabricated by the second respondent and produced before the first respondent. 7. That apart, the CCTV footage dated 20.03.2020 was produced and it revealed that the second respondent entered the petitioners' house that too by jumping over the compound wall along with hooligans. All the hooligans and the second respondent attacked the entire family members, viz, the petitioners herein. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint against the petitioners. Therefore, the entire allegations levelled as against the petitioners are false. It is also seen that the second respondent lodged a false complaint due to family dispute with her husband. Even assuming that the said occurrence took place, the offences under sections 294 (b) and 506(ii) are not at all attracted as against the petitioners.8.To attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18718 of 2023must 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."9. 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 made out. 10. 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18718 of 2023follows :-"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."11. 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 petitioners. 12.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.13. Insofar as the offence under Section 326 of IPC is concerned, there was absolutely no attack on the second respondent and she fabricated the documents as if she got admission in the hospital and sustained injury. Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18718 of 2023Therefore, no offence is made out as against the petitioners, since the criminal proceeding is nothing but a malicious prosecution and is liable to be quashed.14. In view of the above, the proceedings in C.C.No.32 of 2023 pending on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.28.03.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderLppTo1. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,Pallavaram.2. The Inspector of Police,Shankar Nagar Police Station,Chennai District,Chennai -75G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.Lpp3. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18718 of 2023 Crl.O.P.No.18718 of 202328.03.2025Page 8 of 8

Crl.O.P.No.18718 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No. 18718 of 2023andCrl.M.P.Nos.12465 & 12468 of 20231.Sagaya Praveen2.Varghese3.Pushpa Latha4.Roseline @ Rosi5.Sudha6.Suji....PetitionersVs1. The State,rep by Inspector of Police,Shankar Nagar Police Station,Chennai District,Chennai -75(Crime No.86 of 2020)2. Mary Mercy....RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.32 of 2023 pending on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram, quash the sameFor Petitioners : Mr.R.SreerangenFor R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)For R2: No appearanceO R D E RPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18718 of 2023This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.32 of 2023 pending on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.03.2020 at about 8.20 a.m. the accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant by breaking open the door and attempted to remove household articles. When it was questioned by the defacto complainant, she was assaulted by the accused using hands and legs. As a result, the defacto complainant sustained injury. Hence, the complaint.3. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.86 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 326, 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. After completion of the investigation, the first respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.32 of 2023.4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18718 of 2023the first petitioner is the husband of the second respondent and other petitioners are family members. The petitioners owned a house in which the first petitioner and the second respondent were living after their marriage, which was solemnized on 22.01.2018. Right from the day one, they had wordy quarrels arose between the first petitioner and the second respondent, since the second respondent found false with other accused and she deserted. The first petitioner went to parents house. While being so, the second respondent foisted a false case as against the petitioners for the offences under Section 498(A), 294(b), 323, 313, 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.2 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai. The said FIR was quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.7012 of 2020 by an order dated 24.08.2022. Pursuant to the said complaint, the present complaint has been lodged on 20.03.2020. Even according to the said complaint on 20.03.2020, she was attacked by the accused persons and as such, she sustained injuries and admitted in the hospital on 20.03.2020 at about 10.15. a.m. She was discharged on 26.03.2020.5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.6. A perusal of the FIR registered in Crime No.86 of 2020 reveals Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18718 of 2023that the second respondent appeared before the first respondent police on 20.03.2020 at about 9.15 a.m and lodged a complaint. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent registered an FIR. That apart, the FIR does not even whisper about the injuries sustained by the second respondent or her admission to the hospital as in-patient. Therefore, the medical records have been fabricated by the second respondent and produced before the first respondent. 7. That apart, the CCTV footage dated 20.03.2020 was produced and it revealed that the second respondent entered the petitioners' house that too by jumping over the compound wall along with hooligans. All the hooligans and the second respondent attacked the entire family members, viz, the petitioners herein. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint against the petitioners. Therefore, the entire allegations levelled as against the petitioners are false. It is also seen that the second respondent lodged a false complaint due to family dispute with her husband. Even assuming that the said occurrence took place, the offences under sections 294 (b) and 506(ii) are not at all attracted as against the petitioners.8.To attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18718 of 2023must 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."9. 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 made out. 10. 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18718 of 2023follows :-"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."11. 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 petitioners. 12.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.13. Insofar as the offence under Section 326 of IPC is concerned, there was absolutely no attack on the second respondent and she fabricated the documents as if she got admission in the hospital and sustained injury. Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18718 of 2023Therefore, no offence is made out as against the petitioners, since the criminal proceeding is nothing but a malicious prosecution and is liable to be quashed.14. In view of the above, the proceedings in C.C.No.32 of 2023 pending on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.28.03.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderLppTo1. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,Pallavaram.2. The Inspector of Police,Shankar Nagar Police Station,Chennai District,Chennai -75G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.Lpp3. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18718 of 2023 Crl.O.P.No.18718 of 202328.03.2025Page 8 of 8