JUDGMENT : 1. The above criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the final report filed by the respondent police based on the second respondent's complaint alleging that the petitioners committed offence under Sections 143 and 505 (1) and (b) of IPC for the alleged occurrence dated 5.4.2012. 2. The allegation of the second respondent in his complaint is that, the petitioners distributed pamphlets to the persons assembled in the church containing obscene words and thus created confusion and breach of peace in the community, attracting Sections 143 and 505 (1) (b) IPC. In the final report filed by the first respondent police, which has been alleged that the petitioners issued pamphlets containing obscene words which are not found place in Government recognised pamphlets and thus created confusion and commotion among the people. 3. Mr. N. Ananthapadmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners distributed pamphlets containing the message of God by borrowing statements from the Bible as well as from the book edited by “servant of God”. Even the complaint states that the petitioners distributed pamphlets with an intention to spread sacred news and the number of persons said to have assembled in the scene of occurrence were not given. In view of that no offence under Sections 143 and 505(1)(b) of the IPC is made out. He referred to the pamphlets, old testament and also another book “word of God” edited by “servant of God” and submitted that there is nothing new in the pamphlets printed and distributed. 4. However, Mr. A.P. Balasubramaniam, learned counsel Additional P.P. appearing for the State would submit that against the petitioners, based on the complaint given by the second respondent, FIR was registered, investigation was done and final report was filed before the Competent Court. In view of that the petitioners have to face the trial and at this stage the final report cannot be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent supports the contentions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 5. A perusal of the final report would disclose that the pamphlets contained certain obscene words which are not found place in the bible and therefore, the petitioner committed offence under Sections 143 and 505(1)(b) IPC. Even as per the complainant's statement in the FIR, the petitioners distributed pamphlets only with an intention to spread sacred news. 5. A perusal of the final report would disclose that the pamphlets contained certain obscene words which are not found place in the bible and therefore, the petitioner committed offence under Sections 143 and 505(1)(b) IPC. Even as per the complainant's statement in the FIR, the petitioners distributed pamphlets only with an intention to spread sacred news. Hence there is no intention on the part of the petitioners for committing the alleged offence. Therefore, offence under Sections 143 and 505(1)(b) is not made out. 6. Following words in the pamphlets are stated to be obscene and they read as follows: “TAMIL” The Book called “TAMIL” Old testament submitted by the petitioners was perused. In page 84 chapter 22 the following sentences are found in the said book: “TAMIL” The following statements are also found: “TAMIL” The following sentences are found in: “TAMIL” The following sentences are found in: “TAMIL” The following sentences are found in: “TAMIL” A comparison of alleged obscene words printed in the pamphlets and distributed by the petitioners and the above statements found in the testament would reveal that in effect they are one and the same and nothing new, which is in the nature of obscene, has been added by the petitioners. When the holy book itself, as relied upon by the petitioners, contains similar sentences and conveys the same meaning, it cannot be termed as obscene and it cannot be called as an offence. 7. That apart, it is seen the petitioners only copied statements from the book called “Word of God “TAMIL” edited by a servant of God as found in pages 55 to 57. If the sentences found in the pamphlets are compared with the sentences found in pages 55 to 57 in the “words of god”, is only a verbatim repetition of sentences found in that book. 8. Therefore, it is clear that neither the alleged sentences printed by the petitioners nor the pamphlets have been issued to create confusion or breach of peace in the community. A reading of the pamphlets issued by the petitioners would show it only gives description of “sins” and if anybody has done it to correct themselves by making confession. 9. 8. Therefore, it is clear that neither the alleged sentences printed by the petitioners nor the pamphlets have been issued to create confusion or breach of peace in the community. A reading of the pamphlets issued by the petitioners would show it only gives description of “sins” and if anybody has done it to correct themselves by making confession. 9. The complaint reads as follows: “TAMIL” The above statements make it crystal clear that the pamphlets have been issued incorporating only the sentences found in the above referred books, with an intention to spread the sacred news, explaining the people about “sins”. Hence, there is no “Mens Rea” or intention to commit offences. In fact, the petitioner did only religious service explaining about instances of “sins”. 10. Ingredients of Section 143 I.P.C. have not been complied with for the alleged offences against the petitioners. It is not stated in the final report as to how many people assembled in the scene of occurrence. Section 143 IPC requires involvement of five or more persons. Whereas, no members' nor persons' names was stated in the complaint. Verbatim statement found in or more or less similar statement as found in old testament, giving the same meaning, by no stretch of imagination could be called as “obscene words” or “obscene sentences” which were printed by the petitioners. Even, if they are assumed in ordinary sense the context in which they are made, they cannot attract any offence much less hurting one's religious feelings thereby committed an offence against the State or public tranquility. 11. The second respondent cannot expect everybody to spread sacred news as expected by them. The final report of the respondent does not refer as to how the distribution of pamphlets by the petitioners, who themselves are Christians, hurts religious sentiments of the Christians, especially, those sentences are already found in the old testament as well as in the “word of god”. 12. The first respondent police without understanding the case properly, mechanically investigated the matter and filed the final report. They should have satisfied the submissions as to whether the aforesaid words made out offence or not. The respondent should have enquired the petitioners based on the pamphlets and also other materials before filing of the final report. If they examined based on the points raised by the petitioners, the respondent should have satisfied that no offence is made out. They should have satisfied the submissions as to whether the aforesaid words made out offence or not. The respondent should have enquired the petitioners based on the pamphlets and also other materials before filing of the final report. If they examined based on the points raised by the petitioners, the respondent should have satisfied that no offence is made out. 13. Looked from any angle, the final report is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed as the offence have not been made out. As there is no deliberate intention to injure or insult the religious persons nor any statements are made by the petitioners affecting the public tranquility or committing offence against the State, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed and accordingly is quashed. 14. For the above reasons, the entire proceedings are quashed and the petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.