2022 (7) TMI 1571 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking to quash the proceedings on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Dharapuram thereby taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) 323 506(2) of IPC as against the petitioners. Offence under Section 294(b) of IPC - HELD THAT - 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. Offence under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C - HELD THAT - 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. Offence under Section 323 of IPC - HELD THAT - The first petitioner is a handicapped person up to the level of 80% and in fact he appeared before this Court through video conference and he could not even stand or walk. Therefore there is absolutely no possibility for the first petitioner to attack the second respondent by his leg since the first petitioner has severely affected with muscular dystrophy. Therefore the present proceedings is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and initiated only to wreck vengeance against the petitioners. Conclusion - The charges under Sections 294(b) 323 and 506(2) were not substantiated by evidence and were inherently improbable. The entire proceedings is clear abuse of process of law and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioners. The Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

• Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.65 of 2021 should be quashed based on the allegations against the petitioners under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• Whether the allegations made in the complaint are sufficient to constitute the offenses charged.
• Whether the proceedings are a result of malafide intent and an abuse of the process of law.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Quashing of Proceedings under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(2) of IPC

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

• Section 294(b) IPC pertains to obscene acts or words in public places.
• Section 323 IPC deals with voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 506(2) IPC involves criminal intimidation.
• The judgment references precedents such as K.Jeyaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj for Section 294(b) and Bajanlal v. State of Haryana for quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

• The court noted that the alleged obscene words under Section 294(b) were not proven to annoy others, as required by law.
• For Section 506(2), it was observed that there was no real threat posed, as required by the statute.
• Regarding Section 323, the court highlighted the physical disabilities of the accused, making it improbable for them to commit the alleged acts.

Key evidence and findings:

• The first petitioner has an 80% disability due to muscular dystrophy, making physical assault unlikely.
• The second petitioner has severe health issues, further questioning the feasibility of the alleged actions.

Application of law to facts:

• The court applied the legal standards for each offense and found insufficient evidence to support the charges based on the disabilities and health conditions of the petitioners.

Treatment of competing arguments:

• The petitioners argued that the complaint was maliciously instituted due to a property dispute, which the court found plausible given the lack of evidence for the offenses.
• The respondent's argument that the grounds should be tested during trial was dismissed due to the improbabilities highlighted.

Conclusions:

• The court concluded that the proceedings were an abuse of the legal process and were instituted with malafide intent.
• Consequently, the proceedings were quashed.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:

• "To prove the offence under Section 294 of IPC mere utterance of obscene 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."
• "Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

Core principles established:

• Mere allegations without substantive evidence, especially in light of the accused's physical incapabilities, do not suffice to sustain criminal charges.
• Legal proceedings should not be used as tools for personal vendettas or to settle civil disputes.

Final determinations on each issue:

• The court determined that the charges under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(2) were not substantiated by evidence and were inherently improbable.
• The proceedings in C.C.No.65 of 2021 were quashed, and the petition was allowed.