Crl.O.P.No. 4943 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.02.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No. 4943 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.3185 of 2025 K.Krishnaraj ..... Petitioner Vs The State Rep.By, The Inspector of Police, Thirunavalur Police Station, Kallakurichi District. Cr.No.642 of 2023. ..... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the entire records connected with the FIR in Crime No.642 of 2023 pending investigation on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thirumoorthy for Mr.T.Elumalai For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.642 of 2023 on the file of the respondent, registered for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4943 of 2025 offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 353, 506(ii) of IPC r/w 7(1)(a) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 3. Based on the complaint lodged by the Sub Inspector of Police of the respondent police, an FIR was registered in Crime No.642 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 353, 506(ii) of IPC r/w 7(1)(a) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932. It is alleged that on 29.09.2023 at about 1.00 p.m., the defacto complainant along with his team were patrolling in Sendanadu Village at nearby Manalur Road when the petitioner caused a disturbance by standing in a public place, holding a stick in the middle of the road, obstructing traffic, blocking vehicles, using filthy language and threatened with dire consequences. 4. It is seen from the records that the petitioner is awaiting for his enrollment. For the past two years, the FIR is still pending without any progress. That apart, the provision under Section 7(1)(a) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 is only an amendment to Section 195(a) of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4943 of 2025 IPC and it is not a penal provision. Therefore, the invocation of the Criminal Law Amendment act in this case is misconceived and the offence alleged against the petitioner under this Act is not punishable. Hence, the pendency of the FIR would not serve any purpose. Further the maximum punishment for Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act is six months or fine not exceeding Rs.1,000/-. So far, the other offences are concerned, the complaint lodged by the same Sub Inspector of Police of the respondent and there is no specific allegations in order to attract the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC. 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." https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4943 of 2025 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. 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 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. Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4943 of 2025 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. 8. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the FIR in Crime No.642 of 2023 pending on the file of the respondent. Accordingly, it is hereby quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 24.02.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order Lpp To 1. The Inspector of Police, Thirunavalur Police Station, Kallakurichi District. 2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4943 of 2025 Lpp Crl.O.P.No. 4943 of 2025 24.02.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis