(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, praying to call for the entire records concerned in CC.NO.67 OF 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Arakkonam Ranipet District and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned. (C.C.No. corrected as per the order of this court dated 08.06.2026 in Crl.OP.No.10134 of 2026 and Crl.MP.No.7229 of 2026, Crl.MP.No.7230 of 2026))

1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the entire records concerned in CC.NO.67 OF 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Arakkonam Ranipet District and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.01.2025, at about 4.00 p.m., while the second respondent was cleaning the area outside her house near the flower plants, the petitioners came there, used filthy language, damaged two flower plants, and threatened her. Hence, the complaint.

3. Though notice has been served, the second respondent has neither appeared in person nor through counsel. On perusal of the entire records, it is seen that the complainant and the petitioners are neighbours and that there was a wordy quarrel between them. Hence, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the first respondent police, based on which the first respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No. 235 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 447 and 506(i) of the IPC.

4. To attract the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC, there must be an utterance of words intended to affect the person who lodged the complaint. In this regard, it is relevant to extract Section 294(b) of the IPC, which reads 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."

5. Admittedly, there are absolutely no specific words alleged to have been uttered by the petitioners so as to constitute an offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC. Further, the charges do not disclose that, upon hearing the obscene words allegedly uttered by the petitioners, the witnesses felt annoyed. No witness has stated that, upon hearing the alleged obscene words, they felt annoyed. In the absence of any legal evidence to show that the words allegedly uttered by the petitioners caused annoyance to others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC are made out. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in 1996 (1) CTC 470 in the case of K. Jeevaramanuj Vs. Janakaraj & Anr., wherein it was 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. Therefore, the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC is not at all attracted against the petitioners.

6. Insofar as the offence under Section 506(i) of the IPC is concerned, the main ingredients required to attract the offence are threat and the intention to cause alarm. 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. Whereas, in the present case, even according to the prosecution, the alleged threats issued by the petitioners were only empty threats and had no effect on the complainant.

7. 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. 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.”

8. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the judgment reported in (1992) SCC 426 in the case of Bajlal Vs. State of Haryana, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the following category of cases in which the criminal Proceedings can be quashed by exercising the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

                     "102..........

                     ...................

                     7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

Therefore, the impugned complaint is nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law and cannot be sustained as against the petitioners.

9. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the charge sheet in C.C.No.67 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Arakkonam, Ranipet District, is hereby quashed.

10. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.