AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 394 wordsB. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.—This petition is to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.502 of 2000.
This petition has arisen in this way:-
The respondent herein registered abase in Crime No.265 of 1995 under Sections 506(11) and 505(1)(b). IPC against the petitioner herein alleging that on 04.04.1995 at 21.30 hours, near Pudukottai Taxi Stand, in a public meeting, the petitioner made a derogatory speech against the then Chief Minister Ms. J.Jayalalitha. which amounted to a threat to cause death or grievous hurt and also intent to cause fear or alarm to the public. The learned Judicial Magistrate. Pudukottai took the matter on file in C.c.No.502 of 2000 u/s 506(II) IPC.
Heard the Counsel. The speech alleged to have been made by the petitioner is as follows:-
Under an identical circumstance, for making identical speech at Bharathi Thidal, Tambaram on 18.03.1995. a case was registered against the petitioner for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 307.504 and 506(II) I.P.C. Similar petition to quash that proceeding was instituted by the petitioner herein in Crl.O.P.No.l039 of 1996. My learned brother C. Shivappa. J. considered the entire aspect of that matter and held that the speech would not attract the offence u/s 506 Part II I.P.C. The learned Judge has observed as under:-
....Part II of Sec.506 I.P.C is attracted if the criminal intimidation includes threat to cause death or grievous hurt. Mere outburst is not sufficient to hold that it would fall within the mischief of Sec. 506 I.P.C . In the instant case, the averment in the complaint and the statements in the depositions, if taken together, there are no allegations in the whole complaint that the petitioner ever made any attempt or did any act in pursuance of his alleged expression....
The learned Judge has held that mere mens rea would not be sufficient to attract commission of an offence in the absence of actus reus. I am in full agreement with the learned Judge. It is evident that actus reus is lacking in the instant case to warrant the initiation of the criminal proceedings. Continuance of the proceedings would only amount to abuse of process of law. This Crl.O.P. is therefore allowed. The further proceedings in C.C.No.502 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate. Pudukottai stands quashed. Consequently. Crl.M.P.Nos.2920 to 2922 of 2000 are closed as no orders are necessary.