Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1696 (MAD)

K. Jayachandran v. Inspector of Police

2025-03-25

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

body2025
ORDER : This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.151 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police, registered for the offences under Sections 294 (b), 506 (i) of IPC and 4 (1)(j) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act . 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.09.2021, the Head Clerk of the District Munsif Court, Valparai, received information about the arrival of the family members of a Hon'ble High Court Judge at the forest guest house in Sirukundra. The petitioner, when approached by the guests about a bonfire, denied due to safety concerns with forest animals. Later, around 10:30 pm, after the guests were talking loudly on their cell phones, the petitioner ordered them to leave, allegedly threatening them while intoxicated. The guests vacated the premises and stayed in a hotel that night. The defacto complainant filed a report the next morning, leading to a case being registered against the petitioner for intimidation and misconduct under sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and 4(1)(j) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act . 3. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court. 4. The petitioner is the sole accused in this case. The petitioner, a forest ranger, on 21.09.2021, was contacted by the second respondent, to accommodate guests at the forest guest house. The guests arrived at the guest house in Sirukundra at about 7 p.m. without prior notice. Upon their arrival, the guests requested a bonfire, which the petitioner refused due to the presence of elephants in the area, as making a bonfire could attract wild animals. Later, the guests were seen standing outside the guest house, speaking loudly on their cell phones. The petitioner informed them that elephant herds were roaming nearby and if they continued making noise, it could attract them. Despite this, the guests refused to stay inside the room, reportedly due to resentment against the petitioner for denying permission to make the bonfire. As a result, they vacated the guest house and left the premises. 5. In retaliation, a false complaint was allegedly filed stating that the petitioner, in an intoxicated state, had quarreled with the guests. On 23.09.2021, while the petitioner was on his way to the Deputy Director/DFO Office, Pollachi, at approximately 8:10 am, he was called in for inquiry by the first respondent. 5. In retaliation, a false complaint was allegedly filed stating that the petitioner, in an intoxicated state, had quarreled with the guests. On 23.09.2021, while the petitioner was on his way to the Deputy Director/DFO Office, Pollachi, at approximately 8:10 am, he was called in for inquiry by the first respondent. The petitioner was arrested at 9:00 am on the same day and produced before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Valparai. After intervention from the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court, the petitioner was granted bail by the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, on 25.09.2021. However, the bail application filed by the petitioner on the day of his remand was adjourned to 28.09.2021, and despite this, the matter was not considered in a timely manner. In response, members of the Tamil Nadu Forest Staff Association protested by boycotting their work outside the District Forest Officer's office, voicing their disapproval of the petitioner's arrest. 6. Subsequently, under the instructions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court, the bail petition was expedited by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and the petitioner was released on bail. Despite the petitioner being arrested at approximately 9:00 am, he was only produced before the Court at 6:30 pm, though the distance between the police station and the Court is only about 3 km. There appears to have been an unwarranted delay in remanding the petitioner, which suggests that the delay was designed to exact vengeance against him. The case against the petitioner is that he refused to allow the guests to make a bonfire and later asked them not to talk loudly on their cell phones outside the room. This led to a quarrel between the petitioner and the guests, ultimately resulting in the registration of an FIR and the petitioner’s subsequent arrest. 7. On perusal of the case diary, it is clear that following the registration of the FIR, the first respondent conducted enquiries with the court staff and other individuals who were eyewitnesses to the incident. However, none of the guests who were allegedly threatened by the petitioner were examined. This strongly indicates that the case against the petitioner was fabricated to settle a personal vendetta. That apart, the complaint was not lodged by the guests themselves but by the court staff, and the defacto complainant was not even present at the scene of occurrence. However, none of the guests who were allegedly threatened by the petitioner were examined. This strongly indicates that the case against the petitioner was fabricated to settle a personal vendetta. That apart, the complaint was not lodged by the guests themselves but by the court staff, and the defacto complainant was not even present at the scene of occurrence. After receiving information, the second respondent lodged the complaint. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has also been subjected to departmental proceedings, with two charges being brought against him. These charges are as follows: 8. It is evident that the petitioner arrived at the forest guest house at Sirukundra without any prior booking or explicit permission from higher officials, acting solely on the request made by the Court staff, who were serving as protocol staff, to accommodate the guests. The petitioner allowed the guests to stay at the guest house. During the departmental enquiry, it was revealed that on the date of the alleged incident namely 21.09.2021, there were five elephants roaming in and around the guest house. Considering this situation, the petitioner’s actions in permitting the guests to stay there and advising them against lighting a bonfire for their safety were reasonable. That apart, there was no prior booking or permission in the sense of a formal reservation process from higher authorities and no formal allegation has been made regarding such a booking process. In light of the above, there is no credible evidence to support the charges under Sections 294 (b) and 506 (i) of IPC 9. To attract the offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC , there must be an uttering of words to affect the person who lodged the complaint. In this regard it is relevant to extract the Section 294 (b) of IPC , as follows :- "294. Obscene acts and songs —Whoever, to the annoyance of others— (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (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." 10. Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioner as such to constitute the offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC , there is no averments and allegations. Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioner 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner annoyed others, it can not be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC is made out. 11. 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 annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case." The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case and therefore, the offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC is not at all attracted as against the petitioner. 12. In order to attract the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C, threat and intention to cause an alarm are main ingredients. The third ingredient is that the intention must be to cause any person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, subsequent to the main ingredients. Whereas in the case on hand, even according to the case of the prosecution, the alleged threats issued by the petitioner was only empty threats and they had no effect on the complainant. 13. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014 in the case of Abdul Agis Vs. State through the Inspector of Police , which reads as follows:- “7. It is seen from the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. of the second respondent/ defacto complainant that it does not contain any obscene words, which were uttered by the petitioner herein and the entire allegations are very simple in nature. State through the Inspector of Police , which reads as follows:- “7. It is seen from the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. of the second respondent/ defacto complainant that it does not contain any obscene words, which were uttered by the petitioner herein and the entire allegations are very simple in nature. It is also seen from the statement of one Uthami, that the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences when he dashed the defacto complainant. The entire allegations are trivial in nature. Further, to attract the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C., there was a threatening only by words. As pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the petition uttering does not exactly mean what he says and also when the person to whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. Therefore, the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. are not made out as against the petitioner herein and also the entire criminal proceedings is clear an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the entire proceedings.” 14. Insofar as the offence under Section 4 (1)(j) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act is concerned, it is important to note that the petitioner was subjected to a medical examination only on 29.09.2021 at approximately 1:30 am, even though the petitioner had been arrested on 23.09.2021 at about 9:00 am. It would have been impossible for the first respondent to subject the petitioner to a medical examination at midnight following the arrest. It appears that the first respondent, in an effort to fabricate a case against the petitioner, managed to obtain a certificate alleging that the petitioner was in a drunken state and had quarreled with the guests. This suggests that the case against the petitioner was falsely constructed to retaliate against him for refusing to allow the guests to smoke outside the room and denying their request for a bonfire. 15. In view of the above, the entire criminal proceedings appear to have been initiated with malice and ulterior motives, primarily to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner. As a result of lack of credible evidence and the irregularities in the process, the FIR in this case cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 16. 15. In view of the above, the entire criminal proceedings appear to have been initiated with malice and ulterior motives, primarily to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner. As a result of lack of credible evidence and the irregularities in the process, the FIR in this case cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 16. Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.151 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed as against the petitioner and this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.