1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 10.12.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

Crl.O.P(MD)No.17164 of 2016
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.8493 and 8494 of 2016

1.Joseph Charles

2.Arockiasamy

3.Baby Ajintha

4.Jeeva Fatima

5.Arul Christopher

6.Reeta

7.Jessi … Petitioners

Vs
1.State:
rep. by Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station-South,
Madurai City.
(Crime No.8/2015).

2.Sakthidevi … Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal
Procedure, to call for records pertaining to the C.C.No.22 of
2016, pending on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court,
Madurai and quash the proceedings as against the petitioners
herein.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2

For Petitioners : Mr.S.R.Paul Sukumar

For R1 : Mr.A.Robinson
Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

The petitioners are facing trial in C.C.No.22 of 2016 on

the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Madurai. The second

respondent herein is the defacto complainant. The marriage

between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant took

place on 23.08.2009 at Coimbatore as per Christian Rites and

Customs. Two male children were born through the wedlock.

The marital relationship appears to have come under strain.

The first petitioner, therefore, filed IDOP before the Family

Court, Coimbatore, seeking dissolution of marriage. At the

instance of the defacto complainant herein, the same was

transferred to the Family Court, Madurai and re-numbered as

I.D.O.P.No.86 of 2014.

2.The specific allegation of the petitioner is that as a

counter blast, the defacto complainant lodged a criminal

complaint before the All Women Police Station, South, Madurai

City and the same was registered as Crime No.8 of 2015.

The matter was investigated and the police filed final report
http://www.judis.nic.in
3

before the Court concerned. Cognizance of the offences under

Sections 498A, Section294(b) and Section506(i) of IPC was taken and the

case was taken on file in C.C.No.202 of 2016. To quash the

same, this criminal original petition has been filed.

3.The defacto complainant has been served and her

name is also printed in the cause list. But she has not chosen

to enter appearance through counsel or in person.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submitted that the offences under Sections 294(b) and Section506(i)

of IPC are not at all made out in this case. He placed reliance

on the decisions reported in 1997 Criminal Law Journal

1623 (K.Jayaramanuju Vs. Janakraj) and 2002 Criminal

Law Journal 1420 (Saraswathi Vs. State).

5.As rightly pointed out by the petitioner’s counsel, to

prove the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, mere utterance

of obscene words are not sufficient. There must be a further

proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others.

6. It is seen that except making an allegation that the

http://www.judis.nic.inpetitioners herein have used some abusive expressions, the
4

defacto complainant has not stated anything more. Therefore,

the offence under Sections 294(b) of IPC is not made out.

Likewise, the offence of criminal intimidation would be

attracted, only if the threat is a real and substantial one.

In this case, the said ingredient is completely absent.

Therefore, I am of the view that the offence under Section

506(i) of IPC is also not made out. Therefore, the impugned

proceedings deserve to be quashed in respect of these two

offences.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would further state that the marriage between the first

petitioner and the defacto complainant has already been

dissolved, by order dated 19.11.2018, in I.D.O.P.No.86 of 2014

on the file of the Family Court, Madurai and that, the defacto

complainant has not chosen to challenge the same. According

to him, the decree of divorce has become final. He would also

point out that the defacto complainant is facing contempt

proceedings as she has not complied with the Court’s order with

regard to permitting the first petitioner to have visitation rights

in respect of the children.

http://www.judis.nic.in
5

8.Even though several persuasive submissions were

made by the petitioner’s counsel, I am of the view that they are

rather factual in nature and that, therefore, they will have to be

necessarily established only before the Court below in a regular

trial. I leave open all the contentions of the petitioners as

regards the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

9.The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that except A6-

Reeta, who is no more, the other petitioners are based in

Coimbatore. Two of them are senior citizens. They express

certain difficulties in the matter of appearance. Therefore, the

personal appearance of the petitioners, except A6-Reeta who is

no more, is dispensed with.

10.The petitioner’s counsel would further state that

the next hearing date is 16.12.2019. The case is posted for

furnishing the copies on the said date and on the date of

questioning, the first petitioner alone-A1 has to appear.

The other remaining accused can appear through Counsel who

of-course will have to file a special vakalat. Even while

answering the charges, the other accused can be represented

by their Counsel. The first petitioner-A1 has to appear on

http://www.judis.nic.in16.12.2019 for receiving the copies and for questioning under
6

G.R.SWAMINATHAN.J.,

rmi

Section 238 of Cr.P.C. Of-course, all the petitioners will have

to appear when they are questioned under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C., and at the time of pronouncement of Judgment. On all

other occasions, the petitioners can be represented by their

counsel.

11.With this direction, this criminal original petition is

partly allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petitions are closed.

10.12.2019

rmi

NOTE:Issue Order Copy on 11.12.2019

To

1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station-South,
Madurai City.

2.The Additional Mahila Court, Madurai.

Crl.O.P(MD)No.17164 of 2016
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.8493 and 8494 of 2016
http://www.judis.nic.in