Madras HC Quashes Case Against Man Accused Of Threatening Advocate After Advocate Complained To Officials, Citing No Specific Obscene Words And Threats That Had No Effect

The second respondent alleged that, after he complained about the petitioner to the District Collector and Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the petitioner confronted him at a tea stall on 30 March 2023, abused him in obscene language, and threatened to have him murdered.

The police registered Crime No. 237 of 2023 under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), filed a final report, and the Magistrate took the case on file as C.C. No. 89 of 2025.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS); the second respondent did not appear despite service of notice.

Section 294(b) IPC penalises the utterance of obscene words in or near a public place to the annoyance of others; the Court relied on K. Jeyaramanuju v. Janakaraj & Anr., 1996 (1) CTC 470, for the proposition that mere utterance of obscene words is insufficient without proof of annoyance to others.

In considering criminal intimidation, the Court stated that a threat must be real and accompanied by the requisite intention to cause alarm; it relied on Abdul Agis v. State, Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 11030 of 2014.

The Court also referred to the categories for quashing criminal proceedings in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC (Cri.) 426, including proceedings manifestly attended by mala fides or instituted for an ulterior purpose.

The petition invoked Section 528 BNSS as the basis for the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The Court found that the statements recorded during investigation did not specify the obscene words allegedly used or show that anyone present was annoyed by them; it therefore held that Section 294(b) IPC was not made out.

As to the threats, the Court treated them as empty threats that had no effect on the complainant and concluded that the ingredients of criminal intimidation were absent.

It consequently considered continuation of the prosecution an abuse of process.

The charge was stated in the case history as Section 506(ii) IPC, although the Court’s discussion of the threat offence refers to Section 506(i) IPC.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.