Crl.O.P.No.5314 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.02.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.5314 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.3434 of 2025 1. P.Vijayakumar 2. Pandiyan 3. Deivanai ... Petitioners Vs 1. The State Rep.By, The Inspector of Police, Arni Tauk Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. (Crime No.26 of 2024) 2. Sivalingam ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.26 of 2024 on the file of the first Respondent Police and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.J.Dev Eshwaar For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5314 of 2025 ORDER This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.26 of 2024 on the file of the first Respondent Police. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and perused the materials placed on record. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.12.2023 at about 05.00 pm, when the defacto complainant and others were talking together, the petitioners scolded the second respondent with filthy language. Hence, the complaint. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.26 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b) of IPC. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on receipt of the complaint, the petitioners were not served with any notice as contemplated under Section 41 A of Cr.P.C and without even conducting any preliminary enquiry, the first respondent had registered FIR in Crime No.26 of 2024. Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5314 of 2025 5. Admittedly, the first respondent had registered the FIR only on 11.01.2024. There is absolutely no explanation for the huge delay in registering FIR for the occurrence took place on 30.12.2023. Further, all the allegations are trivial in nature. 6. 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." 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5314 of 2025 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. 7. 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. 8. In view of the above, the impugned FIR cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.26 of 2024 on the file of the first Respondent Police, is hereby quashed. Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5314 of 2025 9. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. 26.02.2025 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order mn https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5314 of 2025 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, mn To 1. The Inspector of Police, Arni Tauk Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.O.P.No.5314 of 2025 26.02.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis