High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No. 4291 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.4291 of 2025 andCrl.M.P.No.2699 of 20251.S.Ajithkumar2.S.Arunkumar... PetitionersVs.1.State rep. by,The Inspector of Police,Sathuvacheri Police Station,Vellore.2.S.Velu ..RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in Crime No.219 of 2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sathuvacheri Police Station, Vellore and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.E.SivanandanPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4291 of 2025For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (crl.side)For R2 : No appearance.O R D E RThis petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.219 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police, registered for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 352 of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.06.2024, during the Sri Mariyamman Kovil festival at the native place of the defacto complainant, the names of the donors were announced over the microphone. The name of the 1st petitioner/accused’s father was called in a disrespectful manner, which was questioned by the 1st petitioner/accused. This led to a verbal altercation between the defacto complainant and the 1st petitioner/accused. It is further alleged that the 1st and 2nd petitioners/accused slapped the defacto complainant. As a result, the defacto complainant filed a complaint on 10.06.2024, and based on the complaint, an FIR was registered under Section 294(b) and 352 of IPC in Crime No. 219 of 2024 by the respondent police. Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4291 of 20253. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made by the defacto complainant are false and baseless. It was contended that the petitioners were also subjected to an altercation during the same incident and had lodged a counter-complaint on 10.06.2024, which was registered under Crime No. 218 of 2024. The petitioners were admitted to the hospital as inpatients for treatment following the incident and the offense was later altered to include Sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 506(2) of IPC in the counter-case. The learned counsel further argued that the allegations in Crime No. 219 of 2024 are only an attempt to falsely implicate the petitioners and therefore, the FIR should be quashed in the interest of justice.4. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that the investigation into Crime No. 219 of 2024 is still in progress. It was contended that the defacto complainant’s version is consistent with the allegations in the FIR and the charges against the petitioners are prima facie made out. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side), however, Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4291 of 2025also acknowledged that the petitioners have lodged a counter-complaint and that both cases are related to the same incident.5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.6. On perusal of records, it is evident that the dispute between the parties is rooted in the altercation that occurred during the Sri Mariyamman Kovil festival. The petitioners have submitted that they too were victims of the same incident, as demonstrated by the counter-complaint lodged by them. While the investigation in Crime No. 219 of 2024 is still ongoing, it is clear that the two cases arise out of the same factual scenario. The FIR in Crime No. 219 of 2024 pertains to allegations of verbal abuse and physical assault against the petitioners, but the counter-complaint lodged by the petitioners presents a different version of events, where they claim to have been assaulted and harmed. The allegations, though serious, appear to stem from a common misunderstanding or quarrel between the parties.Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4291 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. 4291 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 petitioners.10. Considering the facts of the case and the nature of the allegations, this Court finds that the continuation of the FIR in Crime No. 219 of 2024 would not serve the ends of justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to prevent unnecessary harassment of the petitioners, the FIR in Crime No. 219 of 2024 is quashed as against the petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4291 of 2025Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.24.03.2025Neutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking ordershkTo1.The Inspector of Police,Sathuvacheri Police Station,Vellore.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4291 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.shkCrl.O.P.No.4291 of 2025 andCrl.M.P.No.2699 of 202524.03.2025Page 8 of 8