Vijayalakshmi v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Orders Reserved on 20.08.2020 Orders Pronounced on 27.08.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN Crl.O.P.[MD]No.14943 of 2018 and CRL MP(MD)Nos.6613 & 6614 of 2018 Vijayalakshmi ... Petitioner / Sole Accused Vs.

1.The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Pulivalam Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District.

... 1st Respondent / Complainant (Crime No.228 of 2017) 2.Mohamed Bilal ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in C.C.No.46 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, Tiruchirappalli District and quash the charge sheet as against the petitioner herein. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar For Respondent-1 : Mr.APG.OHM.Chairma Prabhu Govt.Advocate For Respondent-2 : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.46 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, Tiruchirappalli District.

2. The case of the petitioner before the trial Court is that out of the animosity and grudge as against the petitioner, the defacto complainant herein lodged a false complaint before the first respondent police and thereafter, a case has been registered for the offence under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC., and after completing the investigation, charge sheet has also been filed for the above said offences.

1/4

3. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., would go to show that there is no mention about the obscene or vulgar words uttered by the petitioner. It is further submitted that in the absence of utterance of obscene words to the annoyance of others, Section 294(b) IPC., would not be attracted. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution that the alleged occurrence had been committed by the petitioner in public place. Further, for attracting Section 506(ii) of IPC., there is no averment as the petitioner made a life threat to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, in the absence of averments that the victim was put to fear and threat it cannot be said that the petitioner committed an offence of Section 506(i) IPC. According to the petitioner, the criminal proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent is out of malice and grudge. Admittedly, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is having the property dispute in the village in which both of them are residing.

4. Now, on considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the alleged offence has not been committed in a public place. The allegation made in the charge sheet is that on 04.09.2017, at about 3.00 p.m., when at the time the 2nd respondent was attempted to measure the property, the petitioner herein locked the front door and made a threat by using the abusive words. The statement given by the witnesses under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., is also disclose the fact that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner herein restrained the 2nd respondent in measuring the property. Further, at the time of occurrence, the officers concerned are attempted to measure the property which was in the alleged possession of the petitioner. In otherwise, the said occurrence has not been committed in the public place.

In this connection, it is relevant to see Section 294(b) of IPC., which reads as follows:- "294(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. "

5. So, for attracting the said Section, it is mandate on the part of the prosecution to prove that the occurrence had happened in the public place. But, here is a case, all the witnesses have stated that the occurrence had happened in the house situated in the disputed land. Further, the words used by the accused at the time of occurrence is not in the form to cause a life threat. Therefore, the allegation levelled by the 2nd respondent is nothing but trivial in nature. Moreover, the abusive words used by the petitioner is not causing any annoyance to the public as well as to the 2nd respondent. In the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K.M.Sharan reported in (2008 (2) SCC (Cri) 430) 2/4

in paragraph No.25 it has been held as follows:- "25. This court in Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary & Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 305 observed thus: "132. The criminal courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The powers possessed by the High Court under section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles."

6. Therefore, applying the principles set out by our Hon'ble Apex Court in the case in our hand, as already observed, the averments set out in the FIR do not constitute any offence as alleged in the charge sheet. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.46 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, Tiruchirappalli District, is liable to be quashed.

7. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.46 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, Tiruchirappalli District, is hereby quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) MPK Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. 3/4

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, Tiruchirappalli District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Pulivalam Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District.

Copy to:-The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.A. THIRUVADIKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-15330[F] dated 31/08/2020 ) Pre-Delivery Order made in Crl.O.P.[MD]No.14943 of 2018 27.08.2020 AP(07/09/2020) 4P 5C 4/4