9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther 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(i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ool, the first accused scolded him with filthy language and raised objection to graze the cattle. He also attacked him with his hands and legs by kicking him. Therefore, he fell down and sustained injury on his back. At that juncture, the mother of the first accused also attacked him with hands. Therefore, he sustained injury in his right elbow. 3. The first petitioner appeared in person through video conference and submitted that the second respondent is the trespasser in his property which is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. The employer of the second respondent viz., Dhandapani and his son viz., Karthikeyan are opponents to the petitioners due to previous enmity. Therefore, the present complaint has been foisted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent registered a case in Crime No.108 of 2020 and after completion of investigation, filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.65 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram. While admitting this petition, this Court granted interim stay and therefore the trial proceeding has been stalled. 6. Heard Mr. L.Muruganantham, Pary-in-Person, Mr.A.Raghuraman, learned counsel appearing for the second petitioner, Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr.P.Palaninathan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 7. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners abused the second respondent with filthy language and also attacked him. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the second petitioner already filed suit in O.S.No.58 of 2005 for specific performance on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram in which one interim application had been filed by her. Arising out of the said interim application, a Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court in C.R.P.No.4872 of 2014 and the said Civil Revision Petition was referred to mediation annexed to this Court and posted the matter on 28.02.2020. The employer of the second respondent claims to be a subsequent purchasers in respect of the 2.25 acres out of the undivided share ad measuring 4.5 acres, which is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. That apart, the son of the second respondent employer viz., Karthikeyan filed another suit in O.S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents 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. 13. 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: "102.............. (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; f)................... g) 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." 17. Therefore, the entire proceedings is clear abuse of process of law and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioners. Hence the proceedings in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
