Crl.O.P.No. 10399 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.03.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No. 10399 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No. 6703 of 2023 --- 1.G.Madhan Mohan Trustee of Regenboog India Foundation 2.G.Giridharan Manager of Arunachala Village School .. Petitioners Versus 1.State Represented by The Inspector of Police Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District [Crime Nos. 233 & 234 of 2022] 2.A. Gopal ..Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, prays to call for the records in Crime No. 234 of 2022 dated 16.07.2022 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District and quash the same. Page Nos.1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 10399 of 2023 For Petitioners : Mr.S.Patrik For Mr.G.Peranban For R1 : Mr.K.M.D. Muhilan Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R2 : No Appearance ---- ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.234 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent. 2. On the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.233 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 332, 342, 353 and 506(2) of IPC alleging that the 2nd respondent/Village Administrative Officer of Tiruvannamalai Town. On 16.07.2022, when the extension of the said project was carrying out by the Tiruvannamalai Highways Department, Tiruvannamalai, in respect of water drainage in Peygopuram, the petitioners had allegedly prevented the 2nd respondent from discharging his government duty and asked to produce his ID card. On the same day, another FIR has been registered against the petitioners in Crime No. 234 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341 and 290 IPC. Page Nos.2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 10399 of 2023 3. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record. 4. On perusal of the records, it reveals that the petitioners while extending the road in and around Arulmighu Annamalaiyar Thirukovil Madaveedhi, Tiruvannamalai District, they had questioned the quality of the road and also questioned about the safety measures to the 2nd respondent. In fact, the petitioners had already gave a complaint to the District Collector concerned, therefore, the 2nd respondent foisted a complaint against the petitioners that too for the same. 5. To attract the offences 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 Page Nos.3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 10399 of 2023 three months, or with fine, or with both." 6. 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 petitioner annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out. It is relevant to rely upon the judgement reported in 1996(1) CTC 470 in the case of K.Jeyaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj & anr., wherein it was 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. Page Nos.4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 10399 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. 8. Therefore, it is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and the allegations are not at all attracted in all the offences as alleged by the 1st respondent. Therefore, where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners and with a view to spite him due to private any personal grudge. Hence, the FIR cannot be sustained. 9. In view of the above discussion, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the impugned First Information Report in Crime No. 234 of 2022 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Page Nos.5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 10399 of 2023 03.03.2025 MSM To 1. The Inspector of Police Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J Page Nos.6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 10399 of 2023 MSM Crl.O.P.No. 10399 of 2023 03.03.2025 Page Nos.7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis