Judgment:
ORDER
M. Karpagavinayagam J.
1. The petitioners are the mother and the son. They filed this petition praying for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 148 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Erode, taken on file for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(1), I.P.C.
2. According to the prosecution, on 18-8-1999 at about 7.00 a.m., when the first informant Nachimuthu was working in the garden belonged to P.K.N. Murthy, the first petitioner Saraswathi, the wife of Thangavelu and the second petitioner Senthi Kumar, son of the said Thangavelu, who is the neighbouring land owner, came to the garden and asked him not to work in the field, as the said garden was belonged to them and without their knowledge, P.K.N. Murthy purchased the same and in retaliation, the first informant said that he would act only according to the instruction given by his employer P.K.N. Murthy and therefore, both the petitioners abused him stating that if he did not go out of the garden, they would kill him.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that these allegations would not constitute the offences under Section 294(b) and 506(1), I.P.C. It is also submitted that in respect of the land in question, two suits are pending between the parties.
4. I heard the Government Advocate.
5. On going through the lower Court records, it is clear that the ingredients of these offences are absent.
6. The main ingredient for the offence under Section 294(b), I.P.C. is uttering words in any public place to the annoyance of others.
7. Admittedly, the occurrence did not take place in public place, but it took place in the garden belonged to one P.K.N. Murrthy, who stated to have purchased the said property from one Thangavelu without the knowledge of the petitioners, who are wife and son of the said Thangavelu respectively. Under those circumstances, the proceeding for the offence under Section 294(b), I.P.C. is not maintainable.
8. Even with regard to the offence under Section 506(1), I.P.C, the allegations asking a person not to work in the garden, which originally belonged to them and threatening that person to go away from the garden, would not satisfy the main requirement of Section 506, I.P.C.
9. Criminal intimation, as defined in Section 503, I.P.C, is the act of threatening with intent to cause claim to a person or to cause a person to do any act which is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which a person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
10. In this case, no material had been collected to show that the first informant was made to omit to do any act, which that person was legally entitled to do.
11. On going through the records, it is clear either the said P.K.N. Murthy, the present owner, or Thangavelu, the original owner of the property, was not examined. Therefore, the material to satisfy the main requirement of Section 503, I.P.C. is absent.
12. Under those circumstances, the proceedings initiated as against the petitioners are liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same are quashed.
13. In the result, the petition is allowed. The Registry is directed to send back the records to the lower Court forthwith.