V. Dhasiah and another vs State

Pratap Singh, J.—The accused in S.T.C. No. 2551790 on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Kuzhithurai, have filed this petition under S. 482

Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the proceedings.

Short facts are: The respondent filed charge sheet against the petitioners for offences under Ss.294(b) and 506(1), I.P.C. The allegations in the

charge sheet are that, on 27.9.1990 at 6:30 a.m. at Ananvilai Ammankoil, accused 1 and 2 had talked about witness No. 1 in a defamatory

manner and also threatened that they would do away the family of witness No. 1 and had also throttled his neck.

Mr. Paul Vasanthakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that (i) the allegations in the F.I.R., in the statement given

under S. 161, Cr.P.C. and in the charge sheet are to the effect that accused 1 & 2 had talked against witness No. 1 and that the word cannot be

equated to obscene words and that the uttering of obscene words is the sine quo non for making out an offence under S.294(b) I.P.C. and so, it is

liable to be quashed, and (ii) the allegations in the F.I.R., in the statement and in the charge sheet with reference to S.506(I) I.P.C. are not sufficient

to make out the offence and hence it is liable to be quashed with regard to this offence also. The occurrence was on 27.9.1990. F.I.R. was given

on 28.9.1990. But it was sent to court on 5.10.1990. Charge Sheet was prepared on the date of F.I.R. itself, but it was filed into court only on

11.12.1990. In view of the above the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. I have heard Mr. Raja, learned Government Advocate on the above

aspects.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel. I shall consider the submission in seriatim. Regarding the first submission,

as pointed out by Mr. Paul Vasanthakumar, the allegations are only to the effect that, accused 1 & 2 had talked about the witness No. 1 It is not

stated what were the words uttered. The word is as vague as anything. I am clear that the mere allegation cannot be equated to ""obscene"" words.

So, regarding the offence under S.294(b) I.P.C, the F.I.R is liable to be quashed. Regarding the offence under S.506(I), I.P.C., it is necessary to

state the relevant allegations in the F.I.R. in the statement and in the charge, sheet. In the F.I.R it is stated that the accused had told witness No. 1

that they had intended to murder his son, but he escaped and that they are going to do away his entire family and that so saying they throttled his

neck and attempted to murder him. The same statement is repeated in the statement recorded under S. 161 Cr.P.C. That has been again stated in

the charge sheet. S. 506, I.P.C. reads as follows:

Punishment for criminal intimidation:- Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt etc. - and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by

tire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to

impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine,

or with both.

The allegations which I have referred to supra would bring the case within the ambit of S.506(I), I.P.C. Hence, I am unable to accept the second

submission made by Mr.Paul Vasanthakumar.

Regarding the third submission, that is the matter which can be gone into only at the time of trial and hence, it cannot be considered at the

threshold.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed in part and all further proceedings in S.T.C. No. 2551/90 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. II,

Kuzhithurai, with regard to the offence under S.294(b), I.P.C. shall stand quashed. The case will stand with regard to the offence under S.506(I),

I.P.C. and the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously with regard to the offence under S.506(I), I.P.C.