TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., thereby taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 & 506(2) of IPC as against the petitioners. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.02.2020, when the defacto complainant was grazing his cattle behind the Thenmalar School, the first accused scolded him with filthy language and raised objection to graze the cattle. He also attacked him with his hands and legs by kicking him. Therefore, he fell down and sustained injury on his back. At that juncture, the mother of the first accused also attacked him with hands. Therefore, he sustained injury in his right elbow. 3. The first petitioner appeared in person through video conference and submitted that the second respondent is the trespasser in his proper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioners has to be tested before the trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the quash petition. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent police submitted that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.108 of 2020 and after completion of investigation, filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.65 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram. While admitting this petition, this Court granted interim stay and therefore the trial proceeding has been stalled. 6. Heard Mr. L.Muruganantham, Pary-in-Person, Mr.A.Raghuraman, learned counsel appearing for the second petitioner, Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion by an order dated 27.08.2021, concluded that the first respondent violated the human right of the first petitioner and ordered compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Further directed to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as against the first respondent. 10. It is also seen that the second petitioner already filed suit in O.S.No.58 of 2005 for specific performance on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram in which one interim application had been filed by her. Arising out of the said interim application, a Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court in C.R.P.No.4872 of 2014 and the said Civil Revision Petition was referred to mediation annexed to this Court and posted the matter on 28.02.2020. The employer of the second respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both." Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioners as such to constitute the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there is no averments and allegations. Further the charges do not show that on hearing the obscene words, which were allegedly uttered by the petitioners, the witnesses felt annoyed. No one has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the petitioners annoyed others, it can not be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out. 13. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment....