Crl.OP.No.16352 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 04.04.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.16352 of 2023 and Crl.MP.No.10403 of 2023 1. Akila 2. Mathew Joshua 3. Nagarajan 4. Anandan ... Petitioners Vs. 1. The State Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, F-2, Egmore, Police Station, Egmore, Chennai-8. Cr.No.134 of 2023 2. M.S.Abdul Khader ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to FIR No.134 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent sand quash the same. 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.16352 of 2023 For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ravikumar For Respondents : Mr.R.VinothRaja Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 : M.B Zeenathunnissa for R2 O R D E R This petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Cr.No.134 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent. 2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant/second respondent one M.S.Abdul Khader is that he is a shop owner in Wellingdon Estate Society in 53, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai-8, and the Manager and staff of Wellingdon Estate Society demanded maintenance arrears charges for his two shop units S16 and S16A due from 20.08.2021 to 01.03.2023. Hence, the complaint has been lodged by the second respondent. 3. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent has registered an FIR against the petitioners in Cr.No.134 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 294(b), 379, 341, 427, 504, 506(1) and 149 IPC. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.16352 of 2023 4. It is seen that the petitioners are Officer Bearers of the Association of the Apartment, in which the second respondent is one of the members. He is in arrears of maintenance charges to the tune of Rs.97,680/- . When it was demanded by the petitioners, the present complaint has been foisted as against the petitioners. Infact, the entire premises were covered with C.C.Tv Surveillance and on verification of C.C.Tv footages, no offence has occurred as against the second respondent. 5. That apart, already the second respondent filed a Suit in O.S.No.4425 of 2020 on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai seeking mandatory injunction to restore water supply, internet connection, electricity supply and peaceful possession of the shop. The second respondent without paying any maintenance charges filed a suit. 6. Infact, pending suit was pending, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he has inspected the premises of the second respondent. The Advocate's Report also found that the second respondent has been provided with all amenities and also he 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.16352 of 2023 is enjoying all water supply, internet connection, electricity supply and other amenities. 7. 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 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.16352 of 2023 obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the petitioners annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out. 8. 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. 9. It is also relevant to extract the judgement reported in (1992) SCC Crl. 426 in the case of Bajanlal v. State of Haryana, 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.16352 of 2023 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has listed out the following category of case in which the criminal proceedings can be quashed using the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: "102.......... ................... 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." Therefore, the impugned FIR is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and the entire allegations cannot be sustained as against the petitioners and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the FIR registered in Crime No.134 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent police is hereby quashed. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.16352 of 2023 10. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 04.042025 Vv To 1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, F-2, Egmore, Police Station, Egmore, Chennai-8. 2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.16352 of 2023 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. Vv Crl.O.P.No.16352 of 2023 04.04.2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis