JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the entire records in C.C.No.160 of 2018, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Tirunelveli and quash the same.) 1. The petitioner herein, who is the accused in C.C.No.160 of 2018, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Tirunelveli, wherein he is facing the trial for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC, has filed the above Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash all further proceedings therein. 2. In the charge sheet filed by the first respondent against the petitioner herein, it is stated that on 07.01.2018 at 04.29 p.m., the accused uttered the following words towards the second respondent/de-facto complainant, viz., “TAMIL” 3. The aforesaid utterances, according to the first respondent, attracts the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by placing reliance on the following decisions viz., K.Jayaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj and another [ 1996 (I) CTC 470 ] and Noble Mohandass Vs. State [1988 (2) MWN (Cr.) 184], submitted that the said utterances alleged to have been made by the petitioner/accused will not attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. 6. On the aforesaid submissions, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent were heard, who are unable to repel the contentions put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. In the decision reported in 1996 (I) CTC 470 , Karpagavinayagam, J. [as His Lordship then was] in Paragraph 5, has laid down as follows:- “To prove the offence under Section 294 I.P.C. mere utterance of obscene word are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in this case.'' 9. In the decision reported in 1988 (2) MWN (Cr.) 184, it has been laid down by the learned Judge of this Court, as under:- “Further for being an offence under Section 506(2) which is rather an important offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word 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.” 10. If in the light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid two decisions, the allegations contained in the charge sheet and in the F.I.R. and the statement of witnesses are considered, this Court is of the considered view that the ingredients of the offences under Section 294(b) and 506(i) IPC are not made out. 11. A perusal of the complaint/F.I.R. does not show that on hearing the obscene words, which were uttered by the petitioner/accused, the witnesses felt annoyed and in the statements given by the witnesses viz., Mariappan, Sudalaimuthu and Raja, they have not stated anything about the presence of the accused at the time of occurrence. In fact, they have stated in 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements that while at the time of occurrence, the petitioner herein contacted the second respondent/de-facto complainant – Siva Subbu through his mobile phone and made life threat. On the other hand, the averment found in the complaint given by the second respondent/defacto complainant shows that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner/accused herein came to his house and abused him by using filthy language. Even assuming that the story put forth by the second respondent/de-facto complainant is true one, there is no averment in the complaint as the witnesses present in the occurrence place, felt annoyed. Further, it has not been stated either in the complaint or in the 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statements given by the witnesses, as the alleged occurrence had happened in the public place. 12. Similarly, neither in the complaint nor in the 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statements given by the witnesses, it has been stated that when the petitioner/accused uttered words threatening the second respondent/de-facto complainant, he did not feel the threat actually. More than that, in the complaint, the second respondent/de-facto complaint himself has stated that during the time of occurrence, the petitioner herein attempted to attack him by using iron rod. More than that, in the complaint, the second respondent/de-facto complaint himself has stated that during the time of occurrence, the petitioner herein attempted to attack him by using iron rod. The said incident narrated by the second respondent/de-facto complainant is entirely controverted with the statements given by the independent witnesses. 13. At this juncture, it is relevant and useful to see the judgment of our Hon'ble Apex Court in Manik Taneja and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in 2015 (3) SCC (Cri.) 132 : 2015 (7) SCC 423 , wherein our Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows:- “8. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie, establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.” 14. So, applying the principles set out by our Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment to the case on hand, as already observed, the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution itself made controverted statements before the investigation officer. More than that, the entire statements given by the witnesses reveal the fact that the alleged occurrence had not happened in the public place and also the words used by the petitioner at the time of occurrence, do not cause any real life threat. At any event, I am of the considered opinion that permitting the prosecution to continue the proceedings in C.C.No.160 of 2018 against the petitioner is unnecessary. Therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No. 160 of 2018, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Tirunelveli, shall stand quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.