N. S. MADHANAGOPAL & ANR. versus K. LALITHA

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 649 · Decided: 10-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
649
N. S. MADHANAGOPAL & ANR.
v.
K. LALITHA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1759 of 2022)
OCTOBER 10, 2022
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.294(b), 341 – When not attracted –
Verbal altercation between parties on excessive flow of waste water
in the society – Complaint filed by respondent for offences
u/ss.294(b), 341 – Application filed by appellants for quashing of
criminal proceedings, rejected by High Court – On appeal, held:
All that has been averred in the complaint is that the appellant hurled
unparliamentary words towards the complainant – s.294(b) talks
about the obscene acts and songs – The test of obscenity u/s.294(b)
is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to
deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral
influences – Mere utterance of obscence words not sufficient – There
must be further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of
others, which is lacking in the present case – Mere abusive,
humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract offence
u/s.294(b) – In the present case, the absence of words which will
involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or
feelings or words cannot attract the offence u/s.294(b)– No one
spoke about the obscene words – In absence of legal evidence
showing that the words uttered by the appellants annoyed others,
the ingredients of the offence u/s.294(b) not made out – Further,
averments in the complaint are not sufficient to even constitute the
offence of wrongful restraint u/s.341 – No case made out against
the appellants as alleged by the complainant – Impugned order set
aside – Pending criminal proceedings quashed – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – ss.482, 190(1), 204.
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.294(b), 341 – Test of obscenity
u/s.294(b); ingredients to constitute offence of wrongful restraint
u/s.341 – Discussed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.190(1), 204 – Held:
Taking cognizance of an offence u/s.190(1) and issue of process
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 649
649
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
650
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
u/s.204 are judicial functions and require judicious approach –
Issuance of process must be preceded by an application of judicial
mind to the material before the court to determine if there is ground
for proceedings against the accused – If the allegations made in
the complaint are too vague and general without giving any material
particulars of the offence alleged then the order of the Magistrate
issuing process on the basis of the complaint would not be justified
as there must be material prima facie, for issuance of process.
P. T. Chacko v. Nainan 1967 KLT 799 – approved.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1759 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.04.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Crl. O.P. No. 5627 of 2019.
S. Vallinayagam, M. A. Chinnasamy, Ms. C. Rubavathi,
C. Raghavendren, M. Veera Ragavan, Ms. Kajal Singhal, Rajeev Gupta,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Khan, Ms. K. Bhuvaneswari, Ms. R. Sarala, Md.
Shahid Anwar, Advs. for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is at the instance of the original accused Nos. 1 &
2 resply in a complaint lodged by the respondent herein before the Court
of the Judicial Magistrate at Alandur, Tamil Nadu for the offences
punishable under Sections 294(b) and 341 resply of the Indian Penal
Code (For short “The IPC”) and is directed against the order passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 1st April, 2022 in
Crl.O.P.No.5697 of 2019 by which the High Court declined to quash the
criminal proceedings instituted by the respondent herein (original
complainant). The High Court ultimately rejected the application filed by
the appellants herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short “The Cr.P.C.).
3. It appears from the materials on record that the parties to this
litigation are residing at one common enclave called the Sadagopan
Enclave, Kannappan Street, Chromepet Road, Nanmangalam, Chennai.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
651
The respondent herein, the original complainant filed an application
No.STC No.566 of 2018 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Alandur
and prayed for an order of police investigation under Section 156(3) of
the Cr.P.C. or to take cognizance under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. On
the fateful day of the incident, the parties entered into a verbal altercation
on the iss

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.